High Court
Legal Reasoning
1APPLN.956.2024.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 956 OF 20241.Rajendra Vitthal Chaudhari,(Husband)Age- 44 Years, Occ- Labour,2.Sumanbai Vitthal Chaudhari,Age- 80 Years, Occ- Household,(Mother in law)Both R/o- House No 5, Lane No.5, Jai Javan Chowk, Dhule, Tal. & Dist. Dhule.3.Narayan Vitthal Chaudhari,Age-56 Years, Occ- Service, (Brother in law)R/o- Plot No 18, Nakane Road, Court Colony, Deopur Dhule, Tal. And Dist. Dhule.4.Sunita Ashok Chaudhari,(Sister in law)Age-53 Years, Occu-Household, R/o- Navalnagar, Mohadi, Tal. and Dist. Dhule.5.Ashok Yashwant Chaudhari,(Husband of Sister in law)Age-63 Years, Occu- Service, R/o- Navalnagar, Mohadi, Tal. and Dist. Dhule.6.Sumit Ashok Chaudhari,(Nephew of Husband)Age- 34 Years, Occu-Business, R/o- House No 1672, Lane No.5, Jai Javan Chowk, Dhule, Tal. & Dist. Dhule. 7.Kanchan Vikrant Shelar, (Niece of Husband)Age-32 Years, Occu- Household,R/o- Nirmal Palace, Shrikrishna Nagar, Trimbakeshwar, Tal. & Dist. Nashik.
Legal Reasoning
2APPLN.956.2024.odt8.Sunil Ratnakar Mahale,(Husband of Sister in law)Age-55 Years, Occu-Service, R/o- Mohini Apartment, Radhakrishna Nagar, Ashok Nagar, Satpur, Tal. & Dist. Nashik.9.Manisha @ Joyti Sunil Mahale,(Sister in law)Age-50 Years, Occu-Household, R/o- Mohini Apartment, Radhakrishna Nagar, Ashok Nagar, Satpur, Tal. & Dist. Nashik..… ApplicantsVersus1.The State of Maharashtra.2.Sau. Yogita W/o Rajendra Chaudhari,Age-36 years, Occ- Household, R/o- Arun Nagar, Chopda, Tq. Chopda, District-Jalgaon.… Respondents(Resp. No. 2 Orig. Complainant)....Mr. Anudeep Dilip Sonar, Advocate for Applicants.Mr. G. A. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent No.1 / State.Ms. Diksha A. Sharma, h/f Mr. Sushil Pandit, Advocate for Respondent No.2....CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE :27th February, 2025.O R D E R: (Per Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.).Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 3APPLN.956.2024.odt2This is an application under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) for quashing theproceedings in R.C.C. No.200 of 2023, pending in the Court of thelearned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chopda, District Jalgaon,arising out of FIR bearing C.R. No.419 of 2023, dated 28th July, 2023,registered with Chopda City Police Station, District Jalgaon, for theoffences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 readwith 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”).3 After hearing the learned Advocates for both the sides,when this Court expressed disinclination to grant any relief to applicantNos.1 and 2, the learned counsel for the applicants, on instructions,seeks leave to withdraw the application of applicant Nos.1 and 2.Leave granted. 4It is averred in the report by the informant / respondentNo.2 that her marriage was performed with accused No.1 on 8th May,2004. Ten tolas gold and R.50,000/- in cash was given in the saidmarriage. After marriage, she started to reside with her husband,father-in-law Vitthal Chaudhari, mother-in-law Sumanbai Chaudhariand elder brother-in-law Narayan Chaudhari. Initially, her husband didnot consume liquor. However, after some days, her husband used tocome in the house under the influence of liquor. When the informant 4APPLN.956.2024.odttried to convince her husband not to consume the liquor, her mother-in-law, father-in-law and applicant No.3 were saying that “Are youbringing money from your father for drinking liquor”. Therefore, quarrelused to take place between them. The applicants were instigating herhusband by saying false things to her husband, when he used to comein the house under the influence of liquor. Later, in 2006, her father-in-law passed away. On 22nd June, 2006, the informant gave birth to ason. After some days, applicant Nos.4 to 9 came to see her newbornson. During the said visit, they demanded Rs.2,00,000/- towards theexpenses of the marriage. She refused to pay the amount byconvincing them that her parents are poor and they cannot pay thatamount. She said that already ten tolas gold and an amount ofR.50,000/- was given in the marriage. That time, applicant Nos.4 to 9abused the informant in filthy language. They threatened that they willpour kerosene on her person and set her on fire. The informant wentto the police station for lodging the report. That time, the police calledher brother namely Kiran Kantilal Chaudhari there. Her husband tookaway her son Chetan Rajendra Chaudhari from her. Thereafter, herbrother took her back to her maternal home. She made an applicationagainst the applicants to the Women’s Vigilance Committee. However,nobody turned there. Therefore, she lodged the report against theapplicants that they treated her with cruelty. 5APPLN.956.2024.odt5The 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. If the applicants are directed to face the trial, in such situation,they will certainly suffer. He lastly prayed to allow the application. 6The learned APP for the State as well as the learnedcounsel for respondent No.2 strongly opposed the application andsubmitted that the applicants are involved in the serious crime. Theirnames are mentioned in the report. They have committed anti-socialcrime. They lastly prayed to reject the application. 7We have perused the report and the statements ofwitnesses. 8Here, 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 ingredients 6APPLN.956.2024.odtto constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. Infrivolous 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....”9A 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.”10From perusal of the report and the statements ofwitnesses, it is clear that the witnesses have stated same fact ofdemand of Rs.2,00,000/- on the part of the applicants. They havestated that the husband of the informant was frequently drinking liquorand on the instigation of applicants, he was treating the informant with 7APPLN.956.2024.odtcruelty. The incident of demand of Rs.2,00,000/- as stated by theinformant in her report and the witnesses in their statements, was afterthe informant gave birth to a son on 22nd June, 2006, when applicantNos.4 to 9 came there for visiting / seeing the son begotten to theinformant. 11Another incident stated by the informant is that on 21stJuly, 2022, applicant No.3 and other accused threatened the informantto set her on fire by pouring kerosene on her person and she lodgedthe report of it. However, that report is not placed on record. 12The main applications are against applicant Nos.1 and 2,who were treating the informant with cruelty by demandingRs.2,00,000/-. Their application has been withdrawn. 13Applicant No.3 is the brother-in-law of the informant andhe resides at Deopur Dhule. Applicant No.4 is the sister-in-law of theinformant. Applicant No.4 is residing with her husband (applicantNo.5) at Navalnagar, Mohadi, District Dhule. Applicant No.6 is thenephew and applicant No.7 is the niece of the husband of informant.They are residing at different places i.e. House No.1672, Lane No.5,Jai Javan Chowk, Dhule and Shrikrishna Nagar, Trimbakeshwar,Nashik, respectively. Applicant No.9 the sister-in-law of the informantand applicant No.8 is the husband of applicant No.9. Both these 8APPLN.956.2024.odtapplicants are residing at Mohini Apartment, Radhakrishna Nagar,Ashok Nagar, Satpur, District Nashik. From their residential address, itappears that they are not residing with the husband and mother-in-lawof the informant. Though the incident is occurred in the year 2006 andsame demand of Rs.2,00,000/- was continued, the report was notlodged immediately. As far as the incident of 21st July, 2022 isconcerned, the informant has not stated in the report and thewitnesses in their statements that on that day also, there was demandof Rs.2,00,000/-. Thus, omnibus allegations are made againstapplicant Nos.3 to 9. Their role is not specified as to when they treatedthe informant with cruelty. The essential ingredients of Sections 498-A,323, 504 and 506 are not establishing against applicant Nos.3 to 9either from the report or from the statements of witnesses. In suchcircumstances, if applicant Nos.3 to 9 are compelled to face the trial, itwould certainly be an abuse of the process of Court. We are therefore,inclined to allow their application by exercising our inherent powersunder Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The application, therefore, deservesto be partly allowed. Hence, the following order:-O R D E RI.The application of applicant Nos.1 and 2 standsdismissed as withdrawn. 9APPLN.956.2024.odtII.The proceedings in R.C.C. No.200 of 2023, pendingin the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate FirstClass, Chopda, District Jalgaon, arising out of FIRbearing C.R. No.419 of 2023, dated 28th July, 2023,registered with Chopda City Police Station, DistrictJalgaon, for the offences punishable under Sections498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the IndianPenal Code, stands quashed only to the extent ofapplicant Nos.3 to 9 (Narayan Vitthal Chaudhari,Sunita Ashok Chaudhari, Ashok Yashwant Chaudhari,Sumit Ashok Chaudhari, Kanchan Vikrant Shelar,Sunil Ratnakar Mahale and Manisha @ Joyti SunilMahale)III.The application stands disposed of. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]nga