High Court

Legal Reasoning

cran302.24-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 302 OF 20241.Kailash s/o Somnath DeoreAge 42 years, Occ. ServiceR/o. Panchwati, Nashik Tal. and District Nashik (brother in law)2.Niraj s/o Kailash DeoreAge 42 years, Occ. ServiceR/o. Panchwati, Nashik Tal. and District Nashik (Son of brother in law)3.Pratibha w/o Kailash DeoreAge 42 years, Occ. Service,R/o. Panchwati, Nashik Tal. and District Nashik (Wife of brother in law) 4.Kailash s/o Krushna SuryawanshiAge 53 years, Occ. Business,R/o. Jitendra Nagar, Business,R/o. Jitendra Nagar, Nakane RoadPlot No.06, Deopur, Dhule ...Applicants Versus 1.The State of Maharashtra 2.Minakshi w/o Narendra DevreAge 42 years, Occ. HouseholdPresently R/o. Gurudatta Colony,Plot No.60, Shirpur,Tq. And district Dhule ...Respondents …..Mr. S.A.Kulkarni and Ms. Rutuja Jakhade, Advocate for the applicantsMr. S.A. Gaikwad, A.P.P. for the respondent No.1Mr. Harshal P. Randhir, Advocate for respondent No.2. ….. cran302.24-2- CORAM:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATED:12th JUNE, 2025 O R D E R (PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) :- 1.The present application has been filed under section 482 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) for quashingof proceeding bearing R.C.C. No. 86 of 2020 pending before theJudicial Magistrate First Class, Shirpur, District Dhule, arising out ofF.I.R. vide C.R.No. 135 of 2016 registered with Shirpur PoliceStation, District Dhule for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. 2.The informant-respondent No.2 is the wife of brother ofapplicant No.1. The applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are son and wife,respectively, of applicant No.1 whereas applicant No.4 is uncle ofapplicant No.1. 3.The informant in her report dated 15.05.2016 averred that shemarried with the brother of applicant No.1 in the year 1999. She isresiding with her husband, daughter Amisha and son Gunwant at theupper floor of the house whereas at ground floor of the said househer sister in law Pratibha Pradip Harale is residing. It is furtheraverred in the report that after one to one and half years of hermarriage, the applicants and their relatives started to abuse and beat cran302.24-3- her by fist and kick blows and ask her to bring an amount ofRs.40,000/- for purchase of auto Rickshaw. They also used toharass her mentally and physically by doubting her character. Theinformant had told about the same to her mother Bhilabai and otherrelatives. The mother of the informant had convinced the applicantsand other accused but it went in vain. Since there was no change inthe behaviour of the applicants and others, the informant has filed thecomplaint. 4.Learned advocate for the applicants submitted thatbaseless allegations are made against the applicants without quotingthe specific role of the each of the applicants. The allegation ofdemand of amount of Rs.40,000/- for purchase of auto rickshaw isalso not specific against the particular applicant. All allegations arevague, omnibus and general in nature. There is a delay in lodging thereport. From the charge sheet, it appears that all the witnesseswhose statements are recorded are from the parental side of theinformant. The said statements of the witnesses cannot prove thatthe harassment and cruelty has been caused to the informant. Allthese applicants are close relatives of the husband of the informantand only in order to implicate the entire family and the relatives, thereport has been falsely lodged, without cogent evidence againstthem. She further submits that the applicants have been falsely cran302.24-4- implicated in the crime. Therefore, she prayed to quash the report aswell as the charge sheet.5.Learned A.P.P. for respondent No.1 State and learnedadvocate for respondent No.2 strongly opposed the application bysubmitting that the applicants have treated the informant with cruelty,physically as well as mentally. There was consistent demand ofRs.40,000/- for purchase of auto rickshaw. The applicants and otheraccused persons have caused harassment to the informant mentallyas well as physically for non fulfillment of demand of Rs.40,000/-. Thenames of the applicants are mentioned in the report. The specificroles by mentioning their names are attributed to each of theapplicants. They cannot be exonerated from the criminal liabilityunder Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. It is lastlyprayed to reject the application. 6.It would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’bleSupreme court in the case of Kim Wansoo Vs. State of UttarPradesh & Ors., reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 17 , in which theHon’ble Supreme Court, in paras 9 and 11 of the judgment, has heldas under :“9.In State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, this Courtagain held that where an FIR did not disclose the commissionof an offence without anything being added or subtracted fromthe recitals thereof, the said FIR could be quashed. cran302.24-5- 11.In the contextual situation, it is also relevant to refer tothe decision of this Court in Mohammad Wajid and Anotherv. State of U.P. and Anr., whereunder this Court, in so far asit is relevant, held thus :-“34…….. it will not be just enough for the Court tolook into the averments made in the FIR/complaintalone for the purpose of ascertaining whether thenecessary ingredients to constitute the allegedoffence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatiousproceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into manyother attending circumstances emerging from recordof the case over and above the averments and, ifneed be, with due care and circumspection try toread in between the lines. The Court while exercisingits jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC orArticle 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itselfonly to the stage of a case but is empowered to takeinto account the overall circumstances leading to theinitiation/registration of the case as well as materialscollected in the course of investigation…..”7.We have perused the report and the statements of thewitnesses. Most of the facts stated by the witnesses are inconsonance with the report. Those witnesses are from parental sideof informant. No specific date or time of incidents of causing crueltyare mentioned in the report. It appears that there is no specificallegations against these applicants as to who has abused andbeaten the informant. This shows that vague and omnibusallegations are made against the applicants.8.From the allegations of cruelty made by the informant and thestatements of witnesses, offences punishable under Sections 498-A, cran302.24-6- 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. are not establishing. There is nomedical evidence of injuries caused to the informant due to thealleged beating to establish essential ingredients of Section 323 ofI.P.C. Thus, on such vague and baseless allegations, compelling theapplicants to face the trial, would be an abuse of process of thecourt. The case is made out for exercise of powers under section482 of Cr.P.C. We are therefore, inclined to allow the application, inthe interest of justice, to prevent the abuse of process of the Court.Hence, the following order:- O R D E R I.The application stands partly allowed. II.The R.C.C. No. 86 of 2020 pending before the JudicialMagistrate First Class, Shirpur, District Dhule, arising out ofF.I.R. vide C.R.No. 135 of 2016 registered with Shirpur policeStation, District Dhule for the offences punishable underSection 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. is quashed asagainst the present applicants. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)rlj/