High Court
Facts
1APPLN.850.2024 ANR.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 850 OF 2024WITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 962 OF 2025 IN APPLN/850/202401].Davappa s/o Revansiddh Shivange(Husband)Age 33 yrs., Occ. Nil R/o. Plot No. 62 Vaishnavi Nagar, Bhag-2, Saiful, Solapur Ta. And Dist. Solapur.02].Kasturbai w/o Revansiddh Shivange(Mother in Law)Age. 65 yrs Oсс. Н.Н.03].Dattatrya Revansiddh Shivange(Brother in Law)Age. 47 yrs Occ. Labour04].Sita w/o Dattatrya Shivange(Wife of Brother in Law)Age 36 yrs Ocс. Н.Н.05].Hanamnt s/o Shivanna Shivange(Cousin Brother in Law)Age 53 yrs occ. Agri06].Shardha w/o Hanmant Shivange(Wife of Cousin Brother in Law)Age 45 yrs Occ. AgriAll R/o. Nandni Ta. Dakshin Solapur Dist. Solapur.07].Vishwanath s/o Revansiddh Shivange(Brother in Law)Age. 43 Yrs Occ. Service
Legal Reasoning
8APPLN.850.2024 ANR.odtinformant back for cohabitation, otherwise they told her father to keepthe informant with him. It is alleged that the husband and mother-in-law of the informant beaten her. They said that they will administerpoison to her and kill her. The said incident is stated by all therelatives of the informant. However, general and omnibus allegationsof alleged overt acts of demand of Rs.5,00,000/- is made againstapplicant No.3 to 8. Their role is not specifically stated. Consideringthe report as well as the statements of witnesses, we are of the viewthat the allegations of causing cruelty by demanding Rs.5,00,000/-against applicant Nos.3 to 8 are not sustainable. There is no suchreliable evidence against them. Applicant Nos.3 to 8 are residents ofdifferent place. Applicant Nos.3 to 6 are resident of Nandni, TalukaDakshin Solapur, District Solapur. Applicant No.7 is married brother-in-law of the informant, who is residing with his wife (applicant No.8) atDwarka Nagar, Saiful, Solapur, Taluka and District Solapur. If all theseaspects are considered together, then we are of the view that vague,omnibus and general allegations are made against applicant Nos.3 to8 that they treated the informant with cruelty by demandingRs.5,00,000/- for purchasing a car. In such circumstances, if applicantNos.3 to 8 are directed to face the trial, it would certainly be an abuseof the process of Court. We are therefore, inclined to allow theapplication to the extent of applicant Nos.3 to 8 by exercising ourinherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The application, 9APPLN.850.2024 ANR.odttherefore deserves to be partly allowed in favour of applicant Nos.3 to8 in the interest of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process ofthe Court. Hence, the following order:- O R D E RI.Criminal Application No.850 of 2024 of applicantNos.1 and 2 stands dismissed as withdrawn.II.The proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.393 of2024 and Charge-Sheet No.65 of 2024, pending inthe Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class atAusa, District Latur, arising out of F.I.R. bearing C.R.No.20 of 2024, dated 24th January, 2024, registeredwith Bhada Police Station, Taluka Ausa, District Latur,for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian PenalCode, stands quashed and set aside to the extent ofapplicant Nos.3 to 8 (Dattatrya Revansiddh Shivange,Sita w/o Dattatrya Shivange, Hanamnt s/o ShivannaShivange, Shardha w/o Hanmant Shivange,Vishwanath s/o Revansiddh Shivange and Kanchan@ Bhagyashri w/o Vishwanath Shivange) only.III.Both the applications stand disposed of. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]nga
Arguments
2APPLN.850.2024 ANR.odt08].Kanchan @ Bhagyashri w/o Vishwanath Shivange(Wife of Brother in Law)Age 34 yrs Occ. H.H.Both R/o Plot No. 42, Dwarka Nagar, Saiful,Solapur Ta. And Dist. Solapur.… ApplicantsVersus01].The State of Maharashtra,Through the Police Station Officer,Bhada Police Station, Bhada Tq. AusaDist. Latur.2].Pallavi w/o Devappa ShivangeAge. 25 yrs Ocс. Н.Н.R/o. Aashiv Ta. AusaDist. Latur.… Respondents...Mr. Namdev D. Kendre, Advocate for Applicants.Mr. V. K. Kotecha, APP for Respondent No.1.Mr. Nileshsingh J. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ...CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE :20th March, 2025.O R D E R: (Per Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.).Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 2Criminal Application No.962 of 2025 is filed seeking leaveto file charge-sheet. For the reasons stated in the application, 3APPLN.850.2024 ANR.odtCriminal Application No.962 of 2025 is allowed. Amendment to becarried out within a period of four weeks.3Criminal Application No.850 of 2024 is filed under Section482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”)for quashing the proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.393 of 2024and Charge-Sheet No.65 of 2024, pending in the Court of learnedJudicial Magistrate First Class at Ausa, District Latur, arising out ofF.I.R. bearing C.R. No.20 of 2024, dated 24th January, 2024, registeredwith Bhada Police Station, Taluka Ausa, District Latur, for the offencespunishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code.4When this Court expressed disinclination to grant anyrelief to applicant Nos.1 and 2, the learned counsel for the applicants,on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the application of applicantNos.1 and 2. Leave granted. 5Applicant No.1 is the husband of informant / respondentNo.2. Applicant No.2 is the mother-in-law and applicant No.3 is thebrother-in-law of the informant. Applicant No.4 is the wife of applicantNo.3. Applicant No.5 is the cousin brother-in-law of the informant andapplicant No.6 is the wife of applicant No.5. Applicant No.7 is the 4APPLN.850.2024 ANR.odtbrother-in-law of the informant and applicant No.8 is the wife ofapplicant No.7.6It is averred in the report by the informant that she marriedwith accused No.1 on 21st May, 2023. At the time of marriage, anamount of Rs.3,00,000/- alongwith seven tolas gold ornaments andhousehold articles were given. Initially, the informant was treated wellfor two months. Thereafter, the applicants, her husband and themother-in-law started to harass her by saying that the informant ismentally unstable and incapable of handling household chores. Theystarted to abuse and beat her. They demanded Rs.5,00,000/- forpurchasing a car. The informant said that her father is not able to paythat amount. Therefore, the applicants abused and beaten her andkept her starved. 7On 8th July, 2023, the informant came to her parents’house at Ashiv, Taluka Ausa. Her husband and in-laws did not comethere to take her back for cohabitation. Therefore, her father madephone call to them and requested them to take the informant back. Atthat time, they said that first pay Rs.5,00,000/- and then the applicantswill take the informant back for cohabitation. That time, the father ofthe informant said that “we will discuss this issue”. All the applicantscame to the meeting at the house of the father of informant. The 5APPLN.850.2024 ANR.odtapplicants said first pay the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for purchasing acar. They said that, if the father of informant is not paying that amount,then he shall keep the informant with him. The informant and herfather requested the applicants that they could not fulfill that demand.At that time, all the applicants abused them. The informant requestedthe applicants not to abuse her father. At that time, the informant wasslapped by her husband and the mother-in-law. The applicants furtherthreatened that if the informant returned, they would administer poisonand kill her. 8On 2nd November, 2023, the informant lodged a writtencomplaint against the applicants with the Women’s GrievanceRedressal Center, Latur. The applicants refused to take her back forcohabitation. Therefore, she lodged the report on 24th January, 2024against the applicants for treating her with cruelty. 9The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that theapplicants are falsely implicated in the crime. The vague and omnibusallegations are made against the applicants, which are not establishingthe essential ingredients of Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of theIPC. They never treated the informant with cruelty. If the applicantsare directed to face the trial, in such situation, they will certainly suffer.He lastly prayed to allow the application. 6APPLN.850.2024 ANR.odt10The learned APP for the State strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that the applicants are involved in theserious crime. Their names are mentioned in the report. They havecommitted anti-social crime. They demanded Rs.5,00,000/- to theinformant for purchasing a car. He lastly prayed to reject theapplication. 11The learned counsel for the informant / respondent No.2also strongly opposed the application and submitted that the names ofthe applicants are mentioned in the report. They treated the informantwith cruelty by demanding Rs.5,00,000/- for purchasing a car. Theapplicants kept the informant starved. He lastly prayed to reject theapplication. 12Here, it is relevant to refer to the decision of theHonourable Supreme Court in Mohammad Wajid and Another Vs.State of U.P. and Another, reported in, 2023 SCC Online SC 951;2023 INSC 683, whereunder the Honourable Supreme Court heldthus:-“34.……. it will not be just enough for the Court to lookinto the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for thepurpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredientsto constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In 7APPLN.850.2024 ANR.odtfrivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a dutyto look into many other attending circumstances emergingfrom the record of the case over and above the avermentsand, if need be, with due care and circumspection try toread in between the lines. The Court while exercising itsjurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 ofthe Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage ofa case but is empowered to take into account the overallcircumstances leading to the initiation/registration of thecase as well as the materials collected in the course ofinvestigation....”13A reference also can be made to the judgment in the caseof CBI Vs. Aryan Singh, reported in, 2023 SCC Online SC 379, inwhich the Honourable Supreme Court held that as under:-“Para 10… As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stageof discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings,while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C.,the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial.”14We have perused the report and the charge-sheet,particularly, the statements of witnesses. 15On perusal of the statements of witnesses, it can be seenthat same type of allegations are made by the witnesses about the lastincident dated 8th July, 2023 stated by the informant in her report. Theinformant stated that all the applicants came there and demandedRs.5,00,000/- and said first pay that amount and then they will take the