High Court
Legal Reasoning
1APPLN.2693.2023 ORS.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2693 OF 20231.Baliram Bapurao Gaikwad,(Cousin Father-in-Law)Age-59 years, Occupation- Pensioner, R/o. Flat No. A-02, Trishul App. Santoshi Nagar, Narali Bag, Aurangabad,Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.2.Swapnali Guarav Shinde,(Sister-in-Law)Age-32 years, Occupation- Household, R/o. Akshay Building, Block No.10, P.W.D Quarters, Ramdaspath, Akola,Tq. & Dist. Akola.… Applicants(Accused) Versus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Police Station Purna, Tq Purna. Dist. Parbhani.2.Sonali w/o. Swapnil Gaikwad,Age-25 years, Occupation-Household, R/o. C/o Balasaheb Kale, Near Narsing Temple, Erandeshwar, Tq. Purna Dist. Parbhani.… Respondents[Respondent no.2 is original informant]...Mr. Sanket Sunil Shinde, Advocate for Applicants.Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for Respondent No.1 / State.Mr. Pravin N. Kalani, Advocate for Respondent No.2....
Legal Reasoning
2APPLN.2693.2023 ORS.odtANDCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1070 OF 20241.Sambhaji Bapurao GaikwadAge-64 years, Occupation- Pensioner, R/o. At. P.O. Ukhali, Tq. Aundha Nagnath, Dist. Hingoli.2.Mandabai Sambhaji GaikwadAge-58 years, Occupation- Household, R/o. At. P.O. Ukhali, Tq. Aundha Nagnath, Dist. Hingoli.3.Rajabhau Balasaheb KadamAge-46 years, Occupation- Agril, R/o. At. Tapovan, Tq. Aundha Nagnath, Dist. Hingoli.… Applicants(Accused)Versus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Police Station Purna, Tq Purna. Dist. Parbhani.2.Sonali w/o. Swapnil Gaikwad,Age-25 years, Occupation-Household, R/o. C/o Balasaheb Kale, Near Narsing Temple, Erandeshwar, Tq. Purna Dist. Parbhani.… Respondents[Respondent no.2 is original informant]...Mr. Sanket Sunil Shinde, Advocate for Applicants.Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for Respondent No.1 / State.Mr. Pravin N. Kalani, Advocate for Respondent No.2.... 3APPLN.2693.2023 ORS.odtANDCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1075 OF 20241.Chaya D/o Madan Kute,Age-35 years, Occupation- Household,R/o. C/o Madan Yadavrao Kute, At Pimpalgaon, Hajam, Post. Hatta, Tq. Wasmat, Dist. Hingoli.2.Madan S/o Yadavrao Kute,Age-66 years, Occupation- Agriculturist, R/o. at Pimpalgaon, Hajam, Post. Hatta, Tq. Wasmat, Dist. Hingoli.3.Saraswati W/o Madan Kute,Age-51 years, Occupation- Household, R/o. at Pimpalgaon, Hajam, Post. Hatta, Tq. Wasmat, Dist. Hingoli… Applicants(Accused)Versus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Police Station Purna, Tq Purna. Dist. Parbhani.2.Sonali w/o. Swapnil Gaikwad,Age-25 years, Occupation-Household, R/o. C/o Balasaheb Kale, Near Narsing Temple, Erandeshwar, Tq. Purna Dist. Parbhani.… Respondents[Respondent no.2 is Informant]...Mr. Krushna S. Solanke, Advocate for Applicants.Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for Respondent No.1 / State.Mr. Pravin N. Kalani, Advocate for Respondent No.2....CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE :04th July, 2025. 4APPLN.2693.2023 ORS.odtO R D E R: (Per Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.)1Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 2These applications are filed under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) for quashingof the proceedings in R.C.C. No.177 of 2023, pending in the Court oflearned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Purna, District Parbhani,arising out of FIR bearing Crime No.144 of 2023, dated 28th June,2023, registered with Purna Police Station, District Parbhani, for theoffences punishable under Sections 498-A, 494, 323, 504 and 506read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”). 3In Criminal Application No.2693 of 2023, applicant No.1 isthe cousin father-in-law of the informant / respondent No.2. ApplicantNo.2 is the sister-in-law of the informant.4In Criminal Application No.1070 of 2024, applicant Nos.1and 2 are parents-in-law of the informant / respondent No.2. ApplicantNo.3 is the maternal uncle-in-law of the informant.5In Criminal Application No.1075 of 2024, applicant No.1 is 5APPLN.2693.2023 ORS.odtthe second wife of accused No.1. Applicant Nos.2 and 3 are theparents of applicant No.1. 6Respondent No.2 / informant averred in the report that hermarriage was solemnized on 24th April, 2018 with accused No.1, who isemployed as a teacher at an institution. The marriage was arrangedon the assurance that the groom was a teacher. Her father incurredapproximately Rs.30 lakhs in marriage expenses, including Rs.12lakhs in dowry, five tolas of gold, and also provided household articlesfor the couple. The marriage was arranged through the mediation ofPandurang Kale, Jagannath Gaikwad, Ganpat Khating and SopanGovindrao Kadam. 7The informant further averred that after the marriage, shewas treated well for two months at her matrimonial home by herhusband and parents-in-law. Thereafter, they started to abuse her bysaying that she is not good-looking, that she did not know how to cook,and that she was mentally weak. She was frequently treated withcruelty by her mother-in-law and husband, and her husband alsoassaulted her. He demanded Rs.5 lakhs from her parental home forpurchasing a car, and insisted that she should bring the said amountfrom her father, failing which she would not be allowed to stay in thematrimonial home. Once when she had returned to her parental 6APPLN.2693.2023 ORS.odthome, her husband came to Erandeshwar and assaulted her,demanding to know whether her father would give Rs.5 lakhs forpurchasing a car. Her mother intervened and saved her. 8The informant further averred that during her stay at hermatrimonial home, her husband’s uncle, namely applicant-BaliramGaikwad also abused her, calling her mentally deficient and insistedthat she should be left by her husband. On 27th August, 2018, herhusband along with her parents-in-law again demanded Rs.5 lakhs forthe purchasing a car from her father and assaulted her, causinginjuries to her head. Thereafter, she was driven out from the house.She remained outside the house, starving, until her father arrived andtook her to a hospital at Jawala Bazar, where she was medicallytreated. The doctor recommended a CT scan of her head. Since sheis residing at her parental home.9The informant further averred that her father had taken herto the matrimonial home on 4 – 5 occasions to resume cohabitation,but the in-laws refused to accept her, saying that she was not good-looking, did not know household work, and was mentally deficient.They stated unequivocally that unless her father gave Rs.5 lakhs forpurchasing a car, she would not be allowed to enter their home. Thesestatements were made in the presence of Shridharrao Govindrao 7APPLN.2693.2023 ORS.odtKadam, Yadavrao Kadam and Daulatrao Kadam. 10The informant further averred that on the occasion of thePanchami festival, when applicant-Swapnali (her sister-in-law) came tothe house, she also assaulted the informant and tried to drive her outand also threatened to kill her. The informant came to know fromrelatives that her husband had married another woman namely,applicant-Chhaya. The said marriage was solemnized with theconsent and assistance of applicant-Madan, applicant-Saraswati andapplicant-Baliram, and the ceremony took place at applicant-Baliram’shouse in Aurangabad. Therefore, she lodged the report. 11The learned advocates for the applicants submitted thatthe applicants are falsely implicated in the crime. False allegation ofdemand of money for purchasing a car is made against the applicants.There is no cogent and acceptable evidence against the applicants.Vague and general allegations are made against the applicants. Theylastly prayed to allow the applications. 12The learned APP for the State and the learned counsel forrespondent No.2 / informant strongly opposed the application andsubmitted that the applicants are involved in a serious crime. Theirnames are mentioned in the report. They treated informant with 8APPLN.2693.2023 ORS.odtcruelty. They have committed anti-social crime. They lastly prayed toreject the applications. 13Here, 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 look intothe averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for thepurpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients toconstitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. Infrivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty tolook into many other attending circumstances emerging fromthe record of the case over and above the averments and, ifneed be, with due care and circumspection try to read inbetween the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdictionunder Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of theConstitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a casebut is empowered to take into account the overallcircumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the caseas well as the materials collected in the course ofinvestigation....”14A 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 as under:- 9APPLN.2693.2023 ORS.odt“Para 10… As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage ofdischarge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, whileexercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Courtis not required to conduct the mini trial.”15We have perused the charge-sheet, particularly, the reportand the statements of witnesses. The witnesses have stated thesimilar facts as stated by the informant in her report. 16The husband of the informant is not party to theseapplications. Though the informant averred in the report that she wasbeaten by her husband and in-laws on 27th August, 2018 and shesustained an injury to her head, a CT scan was recommended,however, no such documentary evidence ha been produced to showthat a CT scan was done. What was the weapon in their hands forbeating is not stated. It is vaguely stated that she was beaten by herparents-in-law and sister-in-law. Though allegations of demand ofmoney on the part of the applicants are made, those are vague andgeneral allegations without stating specific incident, except the incidentdated 27th August, 2018, which is not supported by the medicalevidence. The specific role of these applicants is not stated either inthe report or in the statements of witnesses. The allegations of crueltyare made, which was lastly occurred on 27th August, 2018. The report 10APPLN.2693.2023 ORS.odtis lodged on 28th June, 2023. Thus, the report is not lodged withinthree years as provided in Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. The report istherefore, barred by the law of limitation, in view of law laid down byHonourable Supreme Court in the case of Arun Vyas and anotherVs. Anita Vyas, reported in, (1999) 4 SCC 690. Thus, compelling theapplicants to face the trial, would be an abuse of process of the Court.The case is made out for exercise of powers under section 482 of theCr.P.C. We are, therefore, inclined to allow all the applications, in theinterest of justice to prevent the abuse of process of the Court. Hence,the following order:-O R D E RI.All the three applications are allowed.II.The proceedings in R.C.C. No.177 of 2023, pendingin the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,Purna, District Parbhani, arising out of FIR bearingCrime No.144 of 2023, dated 28th June, 2023,registered with Purna Police Station, DistrictParbhani, for the offences punishable under Sections498-A, 494, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of theIndian Penal Code, stands quashed as against all theapplicants. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]nga