High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 911-CrWP-163-25.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 163 OF 20251.Babasaheb S/o Rajaram Chavan, (Husband)Age: 33 years, Occu. Private Service,R/o. Flat No.204, Shardha Suman,CHS Sector-20D, Airoli, Navi Mumbai.2.Archana W/o Dinkar Chavan, (Sister-in-law)Age: 40 years, Occu. Household,R/o. Loni, Tal. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar.3.Dinkar S/o Rajaram Chavan, (Brother-in-law)Age: 43 years, Occu. Service as Police Constable,R/o. Loni, Tal. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar.4.Bhimabai S/o Rajaram Chavan, (Mother-in-law)Age: 66 years, Occu. Nil,R/o. Loni, Tal. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar.Versus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through the Police Inspector,Pathardi Police Station, Pathardi,Tal. Pathardi, & Dist. Ahilyanagar.2.Sarita W/o Babasaheb Chavan,Age: 30 years, Occu- Household,R/o. C/o. Baban S/o Bhausing Pawar,Vijayanagar, Pathardi,Tal. Pathardi, Dist. Ahilyanagar....Mr. K. N. Shermale, Advocate for the PetitionersMr. A. S. Shinde, APP for Respondent No.1/StateMs. Falguni Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (Appointed)... CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI & SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.J. DATE : 10th JULY, 2025ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]SVH 2 911-CrWP-163-25.odt1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally withthe consent of the parties.2.By this petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of theConstitution of India read with Section 528 of Bhartiya NagarikSuraksha Sanhita, petitioners seek quashing of FIR at CrimeNo.27/2025, registered at the instance of second respondent, on06/01/2025, with Pathardi Police Station, Ahmednagar, for offencespunishable under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352 and 85 of theBhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.3.In short, it is alleged in the FIR that marriage of secondrespondent was performed with petitioner No.1 on 22/11/2020. Aftermarriage she went to reside along with petitioner No.1 at Pune.They both were doing private job. Initially for a period of five to sixmonths petitioner No.1 resided properly, thereafter he starteddoubting her character. He used to beat her. She became pregnantand in seventh month of pregnancy she went to her maternal homefor delivery. She gave birth to a male child. During this periodpetitioner No.1 neither visited her maternal home nor took care ofher. Thereafter father of respondent No.2 took her to hermatrimonial house at Ghumatwadi. From there after 15 days shewent to Pune with petitioner No.1. At Pune petitioner No.1 husbandagain started ill-treating her. He was insisting that she should bringRs.4 lakhs from her maternal home for construction of house. HeSVH
Decision
3 911-CrWP-163-25.odtwas physically assaulting her. She, therefore, came to Ghumatwadiat her in-laws’ place and disclosed the ill-treatment suffered by herat the instance of petitioner No.1 husband, however, the in-lawstook her husband’s side. Her sister-in-law and brother-in-lawassaulted her with fist blows, abused her and took away her goldornaments. On the next day, mother-in-law and husband abused herand told her not to stay there unless she brings money from herparents. She, therefore, left the matrimonial house on 11/11/2024and came to her maternal home. She lodged complaint withBharosa Cell, District Ahmednagar.4.Heard learned advocate for petitioners, learned APP forrespondent No.1/State and learned advocate appointed forrespondent No.2.5.After arguing on merits at length, when this Court wasnot inclined to grant relief to petitioner No.1 husband, learnedadvocate for petitioners, on instructions, seeks permission towithdraw the writ petition to the extent of petitioner No.1.Permission granted. Writ petition to the extent of petitioner No.1Babasaheb Rajaram Chavan is dismissed as withdrawn.6.Admittedly, second respondent was staying with herhusband since beginning. Allegations levelled against petitionersNo.2 to 4 are vague, general and sweeping, without specifying anySVH 4 911-CrWP-163-25.odtinstance of criminal conduct. It is required to be noted here that, inthe FIR, no specific date or time of alleged offcence committed bythem is disclosed. It appears that they are implicated in the presentcrime out of personal grudge and only with a view to pressurizehusband and with ulterior motive of wrecking vengeance.7.Law, on the point of quashing of complaint undersection 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, against family members /relatives of husband is well settled. While laying down this law, theApex Court has made certain pertinent observations in PreetiGupta V/s State of Jharkhand1. The Apex Court has observed asfollows :“30. It is a matter of common knowledge thatunfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasingin our country. All the courts in our country includingthis Court are flooded with matrimonial cases. Thisclearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in thefamily life of a large number of people of the society.31. The courts are receiving a large number of casesemanating from Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860which reads as under:“498-A. Husband or relative of husband of awoman subjecting her to cruelty – Whoever, being thehusband or the relative of the husband of a woman,subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished withimprisonment for a term which may extend to threeyears and shall also be liable to fine.”Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, 'cruelty'means: (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as islikely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause1(2010) 7 SCC 667SVH 5 911-CrWP-163-25.odtgrave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whethermental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment iswith a view to coercing her or any person related to herto meet any unlawful demand for any property orvaluable security or is on account of failure by her orany person related to her to meet such demand. 32. It is a matter of common experience that most ofthese complaints Under Section 498-A of Indian PenalCode are filed in the heat of the moment over trivialissues without proper deliberations. We come across alarge number of such complaints which are not evenbona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the sametime, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases ofdowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.33. The learned members of the Bar have enormoussocial responsibility and obligation to ensure that thesocial fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished.They must ensure that exaggerated versions of smallincidents should not be reflected in the criminalcomplaints. Majority of the complaints are filed eitheron their advice or with their concurrence. The learnedmembers of the Bar who belong to a noble professionmust maintain its noble traditions and should treatevery complaint Under Section 498-A as a basic humanproblem and must make serious endeavour to help theparties in arriving at an amicable resolution of thathuman problem. They must discharge their duties tothe best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber,peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. Themembers of the Bar should also ensure that onecomplaint should not lead to multiple cases.34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaintthe implications and consequences are not properlyvisualized by the complainant that such complaint canlead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain tothe complainant, Accused and his close relations.35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truthand punish the guilty and protect the innocent To findSVH 6 911-CrWP-163-25.odtout the truth is a herculean task in majority of thesecomplaints. The tendency of implicating husband andall his immediate relations is also not uncommon. Attimes, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it isdifficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have tobe extremely careful and cautious in dealing with thesecomplaints and must take pragmatic realities intoconsideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. Theallegations of harassment of husband's close relationswho had been living in different cities and never visitedor rarely visited the place where the complainantresided would have an entirely different complexion.The allegations of the complaint are required to bescrutinized with great care and circumspection.36. Experience reveals that long and protractedcriminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitternessin the relationship amongst the parties. It is also amatter of common knowledge that in cases filed by thecomplainant if the husband or the husband's relationshad to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruinthe chances of amicable settlement altogether. Theprocess of suffering is extremely long and painful”.8.In view of aforesaid ratio and taking into considerationthe vague and general allegations levelled against petitioners No.2to 4, we are of the view that continuation of proceedings againstthem will be an abuse of process of law.9.In the result, Crime No.27/2025, registered with PathardiPolice Station, Ahmednagar, on 06/01/2025, is quashed and setaside to the extent of petitioner No.2 Archana W/o Dinkar Chavan,petitioner No.3 Dinkar S/o Rajaram Chavan and petitioner No.4Bhimabai S/o Rajaram Chavan. Rule is made absolute. Criminal writpetition accordingly stands disposed of.SVH 7 911-CrWP-163-25.odt10.Learned advocate appointed to represent secondrespondent be paid fees as per schedule by the High Court LegalServices, Sub-Committee, Aurangabad, within a period of fourweeks from today.(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) SVH