High Court

Legal Reasoning

cran308.24-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 308 OF 20241.Raghunath Narayan Ghodke PatilAge 77 years, Occ. Nil2.Suman Raghunath Ghodke PatilAge 72 years, Occ. Household 3.Prashant s/o Raghunath Ghodke PatilAge 47 years, Occ. DoctorAll R/o. Opp. Nisarg Hotel,Pundlik Nagar, N-4, CidcoAurangabad ...Applicants Versus 1.The State of Maharashtra Through Police InspectorShivaji Nagar Police Stationdistrict Latur 2.Dr. Archana Prashant Ghodke Patil,Age 44 years, Occ. DoctorR/o. Plot No. 20-A, 23/24, Opp. Nisarg Hotel, Pundlik Nagar,N-4, Cidco, Aurangabad ...Respondents …..Mr. P.D. Bachate, Advocate for the applicantsMr. G.A. Kulkarni, A.P.P. for the respondent No.1Ms. Shubhangi More, Advocate for respondent No.2. ….. CORAM:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATED:11th JULY, 2025 cran308.24-2- O R D E R (PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) :- 1.Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 2.This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) for quashing theF.I.R. No. 363 of 2022 registered with Shivaji Nagar police station,district Latur and the consequential criminal proceedings bearingR.C.C. No. 530 of 2023 pending before the learned JudicialMagistrate First Class, Latur for the offences punishable underSections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(for short “the I.P.C.”).3.The informant averred in the report that applicant No. 1 and2 are her parents-in-laws whereas applicant No.3 is her husband.4.The informant further averred that her marriage wassolemnized with applicant No.3 on 19.12.2004. At the time ofmarriage, 31 Tolas of gold ornaments, household articles and anamount of Rs.21,000/- for clothes of applicant No.3, were given. Thetotal expenses of the marriage were incurred by the parents of theinformant. cran308.24-3- 5.The informant further averred that initially for about 8 to 10days, she was treated well. Thereafter, applicant Nos. 1 and 2directed her to do all household chores. Her husband secured a jobas a Medical Officer in the month of January 2005. Thereafter, shestarted to reside with her parents-in-law. The informant wasperforming all household work as per the directions of applicant Nos.1 and 2. In the month of February, 2005, she requested applicantNos. 1 and 2 that she wanted to complete her post graduation andshe was sent for it at Aurangabad. At that time, her husband wasresiding in boys hostel and she was residing in girls hostel. After herrepeated requests, they both started to reside together in a room inAurangabad. Her parents- in-law did not allow her to conceive a childuntil she completed her education and secured a stable career. 6.The informant further averred that her husband applicantNo.3 used to abuse her and say that he was not willing to marry withher and he had performed marriage because of her education andmoney of her parents. She mentioned that her parents have incurredthe expenses of her eduction at Hyderabad and Aurangabad. Duringthe course of taking education, the remuneration which she wasreceiving, was taken away by her husband. Whenever she wanted topurchase any article, then she had to take permission from herhusband. If she purchased any article without permission of her cran308.24-4- husband, he used to abuse and beat her. When she requested not tobeat her, all applicants demanded Rs.21,00,000/- for purchase of aplot. They started to abuse and beat her on that count. When sheinformed about the same to her father, her father gaveRs.20,00,000/- to the applicants from his bank account. After givingthat amount, she was treated well for some days. Thereafter, herhusband obtained a loan jointly in her and his name. The informantalone is repaying the installments of the said loan amount.Thereafter, another loan was obtained for construction purpose andthe informant is making repayment of the said loan also. Her entirebank transactions are handled by her husband. Even her ATM cardis kept by him with himself. Once, the informant purchased afootwear of Rs.500/-, at that time, her husband questioned her as towhy she spent the amount of Rs.500/- for it. For that, she wasbeaten by her husband for entire night. The informant was bearingthe cruelty caused by the applicants because of ill health of her fatheras well as his reputation in the society. The informant further averredthat in the month of August, 2016, her father died. Thereafter, herhusband expected that his entire property should be given to him andtherefore, he started to harass her.7.The informant further averred that her husband demandedRs.50,00,000/- for starting a new hospital. Therefore, the informant cran308.24-5- lodged the report against him at Jalna police station on 27.12.2021.The informant further averred that on 17.02.2022 at about 10.00 a.m.her husband beat her and threatened that if she does not fetch theamount, he will not allow her to cohabit with him. He abused her anddriven her out of the house. On the same day i.e. on 17.02.2022 thehusband of the informant came at International Hospital, Aurangabadat about 12.30 p.m when she was treating some patient there. Hequestioned her why she is checking the patients instead of going toLatur to fetch that amount. He abused and insulted her. Therefore,she went to her parents house.8.The informant further averred that on 20.02.2022 at about10.00 a.m. the applicants came to her parents house. They started toabuse her mother and demanded the amount and threatened that ifshe does not pay the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- they will not allow theinformant to visit her children. He abused her. He threatened her thatif she is not having money, she should not come to Aurangabad. Healso threatened her against continuing her work at Aurangabad.Thereafter also frequently the applicants made phone call to hermother and herself and threatened to kill them. Thereafter, shelodged the report on 22.08.2022.9.Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that vague cran308.24-6- and baseless allegations are made against the applicants, withoutquoting the specific role of each of the applicants. The date and timeof allegation of demand of amount of Rs.50,00,000/- for starting newhospital is also not specifically mentioned in the report. Allallegations are vague and general in nature. There is a delay inlodging the report. From the charge sheet, it appears that all thewitnesses whose statements are recorded are from the parental sideof the informant. The said statements of the witnesses cannot provethat the harassment and cruelty has been caused to the informant.He further submits that the applicants have been implicated in thecrime without any basis. Therefore, he prayed to quash the report aswell as the consequential proceedings. 10.Learned A.P.P. for respondent No.1 State strongly opposedthe application by submitting that the applicants have treated theinformant with cruelty, physically as well as mentally. There was ademand of Rs.50,00,000/- on the part of all applicants for startingnew hospital and on account of non fulfillment of the said demand,the applicants have treated the informant with cruelty and haveabused and beaten her. The applicants have caused harassment tothe informant mentally as well as physically. The names of theapplicants are mentioned in the report with specific roles attributed toeach of the applicants. They cannot be exonerated from the criminal cran308.24-7- liability under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of the I.P.C. It islastly prayed to reject the application. 11.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.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 itself cran308.24-8- only 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…..”12.We have perused the charge sheet, particularly the report andthe statements of the witnesses. The witnesses have stated samefacts as stated by the informant in her report. The informant has notstated the age of her children and their statements have not beenrecorded to establish the alleged cruelty. No injury certificate hasbeen filed on record though it is asserted in the report that she hadlodged the report against her husband on 27.12.2021 with the policestation at Jalna. The outcome of that complaint remains unclarifiedby the informant. The report shows that she was allowed to continueher education of post graduation. As far as the allegations oftransferring an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- by the father of theinformant in the name of husband of the informant i.e. applicant No.3is concerned, there is no such documentary material of banktransaction on record. The report is not lodged immediately after thealleged incident of cruelty. The vague and general allegations ofcruelty are made against the applicants without having anysupportive material. Therefore, allegations of cruelty are improbableand hence not sufficient to establish the essential ingredients ofSection 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of the I.P.C. Therefore, cran308.24-9- compelling the applicants to face the trial, would be an abuse ofprocess of the court. The case is made out for exercise of ourextraordinary powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. We aretherefore, inclined to allow the application, in the interest of justice toprevent the abuse of process of the Court. Hence, the followingorder:-O R D E RI.The application stands allowed. II.The F.I.R. No. 363 of 2022 registered with Shivaji Nagar policestation, district Latur for the offences punishable undersections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of the I.P.C. and theconsequential criminal proceedings bearing R.C.C. No. 530 of2023, arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R., pending before thelearned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur, stand quashedand set aside as against the present applicants. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)rlj/