Writ Petition No. 131 of 2024 · Bombaybench High Court · 2025
Case Details
Ethape( 1 ) 33-Cri.WP-131-2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 131 OF 20241]Sharad Bansi Ranyevale,(Husband)Age: 45 years, Occu: Labour,R/o. Bhivgaon, Tq. Vaijapur,Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar.2]Sonyabai Bansi Ranyevale,(Mother-in-law)Age: 71 years, Occu: Household, R/o. Bhivgaon, Tq. Vaijapur,Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar.3]Sanjay Bansi Ranyevale(Brother-in-law)Age: 51 years, Occu: Service,R/o. Sahara Town, Nandurbar,Tq. & Dist. Nandurbar.4]Vandana Valmika Gaikwad(Sister-in-law)Age: 49 years, Occu: Household,R/o. RB-3,306/B, Railway TractionColony, Eklahare Road, Nashik,Nashik Road, Nashik. 5]Shailesh Bansi Ranyevale(Brother-in-law)Age: 44 years, Occu: Labour,R/o. Krushna Patil Chawl, Ghodbunder Road, Near Mahatma Phule Chowk,Ganesh Nagar, Chitalsar, Manpada, Thane (W), Tq. & Dist. Thane....PETITIONERS(Orig. Accused) V E R S U S
Legal Reasoning
Ethape( 2 ) 33-Cri.WP-131-20241]Rekha Sharad Ranyevale,Age: 42 years, Occu: Household,C/o. Dagdu Annaji Gaikwad,R/o. Behind Buddha Vihar, NearBalkeshwar Temple, Nutan Vaahat, Old Jalna, Tq. & dist. Jalna. ...RESPONDENTS(Orig. applicant)Mr. Sachin P. Sonwane, Advocate for the Petitioners.Mr. R. P. Kahale h/f Mr. R. P. Savale, Advocate for sole Respondent. CORAM:KISHORE C. SANT, J.RESERVED ON: 14th AUGUST 2025. PRONOUNCED ON:8th SEPTEMBER 2025.PC :-1.Heard Mr. Sonwane, the learned Advocate for the petitioners andMr. Kahale, the learned Advocate for the respondent. This petition isheard for final disposal at the stage of admission with the consent of theparties.2.This petition is filed praying for quashing the proceedings ofPWDV Application No. 68 of 2021, pending in the Court of learned ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Jalna. The petitioners before this Court are thehusband, mother-in-law, brothers-in-law and sister-in-law of respondent Ethape( 3 ) 33-Cri.WP-131-2024No. 2, complainant in the proceedings.3.Petitioner No. 1 is the husband, Petitioner No. 2 is mother-in-law,Petitioner No.3 and 5 are the brothers-in-law, Petitioner No.4 is thesister-in-law.4.The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that thepetitioner No.1 and respondent got married on 28th March 2004, atJalna. They cohabited well together for about two months. Thereafter,the respondent went to her parent’s house at Jalna. She also insisted thepetitioner No.1 to join her at Jalna. For some time, the couple resided atJalna. However, the respondent and her brothers then started harassingthe petitioner No.1. It is also a case that because of that, there werestrained relations. However, thereafter the wife left the company of thepetitioner No.1. 5.Since, the petitioner No.1 had a desire to reside together, he filedHindu Marriage Petition bearing No.161 of 2020 praying for restitutionof conjugal rights against the respondent in the Court of learned Jt. Civil Ethape( 4 ) 33-Cri.WP-131-2024Judge Senior Division, Vaijapur. It is the case that the respondent evendid not bother to appear in the said proceedings. The said proceedingscame to be allowed by ex-parte judgment dated 4th July 2023. In spiteof this judgment, the respondent did not come for cohabitation andinstead she filed a complaint with ‘Bharosa Cell’, Kadim Jalna PoliceStation on 16th October 2020, alleging that petitioner No.1 is addicted toalcohol. There is a demand of amount from in-laws and on that, there isconstant harassment by the husband. He also abuses and beats her. Onthis, an application was filed. It is not clear as to what happened to thesecomplaints thereafter. Subsequently, one more complaint came to befiled with the Protection Officer on 16th September 2021 levellingallegations against the petitioner No.1. It is alleged in the said complaintthat other petitioners instigate the husband. Ultimately, she filed apetition under Domestic Violence Act, which is now numbered as 68 of2021 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna.6.In the meantime, there was also an FIR filed by the respondent on31st August 2021 in Kadim Jalna Police Station for the offences Ethape( 5 ) 33-Cri.WP-131-2024punishable under Sections 498-A and 504 r/w 34 of the Indian PenalCode, 1860, wherein the husband, mother-in-law and brothers-in-laware only shown as accused persons. The said FIR came to be quashed bythe division bench of this Court in Criminal Application No. 119 of 2022.The Division Bench, except petitioner No.1, quashed the proceedingsagainst present petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 5, holding that no case is madeout against them. It is on this background, now the petitioners havecome to this Court praying for quashing of the domestic violenceproceedings.7.Mr. Sonwane, the learned Advocate for the petitioners, vehementlyargued that, looking to the complaint under the Domestic Violence Actas it is, no sufficient allegations are made out showing any instance ofdomestic violence. It is filed only to bring pressure upon the petitionersand for getting monetary benefits. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are residingseparately. There are no averments that they are sharing the household.They do not fall in the definition of persons having domesticrelationship. He thus submits that continuation of the proceedings Ethape( 6 ) 33-Cri.WP-131-2024would be clearly an abuse of process of law. He thus prays for allowingthe writ petition. In support of his submissions, the learned Advocate forthe petitioners relied upon the judgment in the case of DhananjayMohan Zombade Vs. Prachi1. 8.Mr. Kahale, the learned Advocate for the Respondent, vehementlyopposed the petition. He submits that the allegations are clearly spelledout showing that the case is falling under the provisions of DomesticViolence Act. There are clear allegations showing that the husband is inhabit of drinks. Though he is working as a labour, he still asks foramount from the wife for his vices. There is also a demand of dowryfrom the parents of the respondent. He submits that the allegationagainst other petitioners is that they are instigating the husband in doingthe acts of domestic violence, and therefore, all the petitioners are liablefor action. The complaint clearly spells out role of each of thepetitioners. He thus prays for rejection of the petition. 9.This Court has gone though the contents of the Domestic Violence12023 SCC OnLine Bom 1607 Ethape( 7 ) 33-Cri.WP-131-2024Act application. It is seen that the allegations are only against thehusband. So far as allegations against remaining petitioners areconcerned, it is only that they support the husband and except that thereis no any other allegations. It is not clear as to in what manner theysupport the petitioners No.1. The allegation shows that the husband hasabused her in filthy language in presence of husband of the sister-in-law.Except that, there is no allegation. The other allegation shows that he isinsisting the wife to bring money for buying a motorcycle. However, thisallegation is only against petitioner No.1. Even the complaints madebefore the Protection Officer and the Bharosa Cell, Kadim Jalna PoliceStation, show that the allegations are only against petitioner No.1husband. This Court while quashing the complaint under Section 498-Ahas observed that no material allegations are found against otherpetitioners. The said order is not challenged by the respondent-wife. 10.In the case of Dhananjay Zombade (supra), this Court whilequashing the proceedings has observed that the proceedings of DomesticViolence Act are filed at even distant place, i.e. place where aggrieved Ethape( 8 ) 33-Cri.WP-131-2024person resides as per Section 2(s) of the Act and not only husband andjoint family members residing under one roof are made respondents butthe distant relatives those who have no domestic relationship are alsoroped in order to cause harassment and to build pressure on husband.This Court finds that the said observation is perfectly applicable in thepresent case. This Court is therefore inclined to quash the proceedingseven on this ground.11.This Court on going through the complaint finds that there are nosufficient allegations against the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5. Continuation ofthe proceedings against these petitioners would certainly be an abuse ofprocess of law. In view of these discussions, following order: O R D E R(i)Criminal Writ Petition is partly allowed. (ii)The proceeding of PWDV Application No.68 of 2021 pendingin the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Jalna, herebystands quashed and set aside to the extent of petitioner Nos. 2 to 5. (iii)The criminal writ petition stands rejected as against petitioner
Decision
Ethape( 9 ) 33-Cri.WP-131-2024No.1. (iv)Considering that the PWDVA proceeding is pending since2021, the learned trial Judge is requested to dispose of the same asearly as possible and preferably within one year from today. (v)With this, Criminal Writ Petition stands disposed off. [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]