High Court
Legal Reasoning
cran587.24-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 587 OF 20241.Pramod s/o Jotiram WaghmareAge 30 years, Occ. Service,Residing at S.N.3/3 to 8, Flat No.1103, Alfa BuildingPandhari Nagar, Handevadi ChowkHandevadi, Pune(husband)2.Jyotiram s/o Ganpati WaghmareAge 59 years, Occ. Retired,Residing at Maven Viyan Society 1103, Handevadi, HadapsarPune(father in law)3.Pramila w/o Jyotiram WaghmareAge 63 years, Occ. HousewifeResiding at Maven Viyan Society 1103, Handevadi, HadapsarPune(mother in law) 4.Pallavi w/o Gorakh AbnaveAge 34 years, Occ. TeacherResiding at Uruli Devachi, Tq. Haveli, district Pune (sister in law)5.Pradnya w/o Kishor AbnaveAge 26 years, AdvocacyResiding at Survey No.10,Unnati Nagar, Hadapsar, Pune(sister in law)6.Gorakh s/o Tukaram AbnaveAge 38 years, Occ. ServicesResiding at Uruli Devachi, Tq. Haveli, district Pune (husband of applicant No.4)
Legal Reasoning
cran587.24-2- 7.Kishor s/o Kailash AbnaveAge 36 years, Occ. ServicesResiding at Survey No.10,Unnati Nagar, Hadapsar,Pune (husband of applicant No.5) ...Applicants versus 1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Officer in chargeMurud Police Station, Latur 2.Shilpa w/o Pramod WaghmareAge 28 years, Occ. ServiceR/o. C/o. Sachin Dilip Sable,Behind Siddhiviyanak temple,Murud, Latur ...Respondents …..Mr. Shritej Surve, Advocate for the applicantsMr. G.A. Kulkarni, A.P.P. for the respondent No.1 ….. CORAM:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATED: 3rd JULY, 2025 O R D E R (PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) :- 1.Heard learned advocate for the applicants and learnedA.P.P. for respondent No.1 State. 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. 192 of 2020, dated 28.10.2020 registered with Murudpolice station, District Latur, for the offences punishable underSections 498-A, 323, 504 r.w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for cran587.24-3- short “the I.P.C.”) and the consequential criminal case bearing R.C.C.No. 94 of 2021 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,Latur. 3.The informant averred in the report, applicant No.1 is herhusband, applicant Nos 2 and 3 are parents in law, applicant Nos. 4and 5 are sisters in law and applicant Nos. 6 and 7 are the husbandsof applicant Nos. 4 and 5, respectively. 4.The informant further averred in the report that she marriedwith applicant No.1 on 19.5.2019. In her marriage, an amount ofRs.2,00,000/- as dowry, two tolas gold and additionally 3 Tola goldand household articles were given in that marriage. Hence, totalamount of Rs.9,00,000/- was incurred for the said marriage. Theinformant further averred that after the marriage, she went forcohabitation at Pune where the applicants and other in laws wereused to reside. They all harassed the informant by saying thatfridge and other articles were not given in that marriage by herparents. They abused and beat her. They said that they will not sendher to Murud i.e. her parents house. She was not allowed to talk withher parents and brother.5.The informant further averred that the informant went to her cran587.24-4- parental house. Her husband applicant No. 1 demandedRs.3,00,000/- to her for repayment of housing loan otherwise told herto not return for cohabitation. The informant’s brother tried toconvince the applicants and she was sent back for cohabitation. Theapplicants started to demand her salary from her. They said that sheshould take whatever meal they will give her and she has to bear herown expenses.6.The informant further averred that, the applicants againdemanded Rs.3,00,000/- to her and she was driven out of the house.Thereafter, her mother and brother convinced the applicants and shewas taken back for cohabitation. There was no effect of thecompromise as the applicants again started to harass her on accountof trifle reasons. They beat her, kept her on starvation and continuedthe ill-treatment. 7.The informant lastly averred that, all the applicants took outall ornaments from her person, abused and driven her out from thehouse by saying that if she wants to come for cohabitation, sheshould bring an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from her parental house.Then, her husband came to her parents house and asked her as towhy she came at Murud, she was beaten and abused. Thereafter,the father, mother and brother of the informant had requested the cran587.24-5- applicants to take the informant for cohabitation. However, theapplicants said that unless Rs.3,00,000/- are given, the informant willnot be taken for cohabitation. Thereafter, the informant lodged thereport. 8.Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that vagueand 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.3,00,000/- for repayment ofhousing loan 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.She 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. 9.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 wasdemand of Rs.3,00,000/- on the part of all applicants for repayment cran587.24-6- of housing loan and on account of non fulfillment of the said demand,the applicants have treated the informant with cruelty and haveabused and beat her. The applicants have caused harassment to theinformant 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 criminalliability under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 r.w. 34 of the I.P.C. It is lastlyprayed to reject the application. 10.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 the cran587.24-7- necessary 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…..”11.We have perused the charge sheet, particularly the report andthe statements of the witnesses. According to the informant, lastincident of harassment took place in the month of February 2020 andthe report is lodged on 28.10.2020. Similar facts are stated by theinformant and the witnesses. Thus, the report is not lodgedimmediately after the alleged incident of cruelty. The vague andgeneral allegations of cruelty are made against the applicants. Thereis no material against all the applicants to constitute essentialingredients of Sections 498-A, 323, 504 r.w. 34 of the I.P.C.therefore, compelling the applicants to face the trial, would be anabuse of process of the court. The case is made out for exercise ofpowers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. We are therefore, inclinedto allow the application, in the interest of justice to prevent the abuse cran587.24-8- of process of the Court. Hence, the following order:-O R D E R I.The application stands allowed. II.The F.I.R. No. 192 of 2020, dated 28.10.2020 registered withMurud police station, District Latur, for the offences punishableunder Sections 498-A, 323, 504 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and theconsequential criminal case bearing R.C.C. No. 94 of 2021pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur.stand quashed and set aside as against the presentapplicants. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)rlj/