High Court
Facts
1W.P.519.2024.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 519 OF 20241]Rajendra S/o Dagduba Nirmale.2]Laxmi W/o Dagduba Nirmale.3]Ganpati S/o Dagduba Nirmale.4]Pallavi D/o Dagduba Nirmale.… PetitionersVersus1]The State of Maharashtra.2]Maya W/o Rajendra Nirmale.… Respondents...Mr. Avinash A. Phad, Advocate for Petitioners.Mr. V. K. Kotecha, APP for Respondent No.1 / State.Mr. Pradeep B. Salunke, Advocate for Respondent No.2....CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE :26th February, 2025.O R D E R: (Per Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.)1Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 2This is a writ petition under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) for quashing the FIRbearing C.R. No.697 of 2023, dated 11th December, 2023, registered
Legal Reasoning
7W.P.519.2024.odtmade against petitioner Nos.2 to 4 that they treated the informant withcruelty. Even the last incident when the informant was expelled fromthe house, is not specifically stated by the informant in the report andthe witnesses in their statements, as to when that incident took place.Since one and half years, the informant is residing with her parents.Petitioner No.4 is residing at Thermal Power Station Colony, ParliVaijnath, District Beed. Her role is also not specifically stated as towhen she came to the house of her parents and treated the informantwith cruelty. The omnibus allegations are made against petitionerNos.2 to 4. If the entire charge-sheet is considered together,particularly, the report of the informant, we are of the view that theessential ingredients of Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 are notestablishing from it. In such a fact situation as discussed above andthe reasons stated above, if petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are compelled to facethe trial on such material, it would certainly be an abuse of the processof the Court. We are, therefore, inclined to allow the petition byexercising our inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in theinterest of justice to prevent abuse of the process of Court. Thepetition, therefore, deserves to be partly allowed. Hence, the followingorder:-O R D E RI.The petition of petitioner No.1 stands dismissedas withdrawn.
Arguments
2W.P.519.2024.odtwith Ahmedpur Police Station, Taluka Ahmedpur, District Latur, for theoffences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 readwith 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “ the IPC”) and theconsequential charge-sheet bearing No.347 of 2023.3 After hearing the learned Advocates for both the sides,when this Court expressed disinclination to grant any relief to petitionerNo.1, the learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, seeksleave to withdraw the petition of petitioner No.1. Leave granted. 4Petitioner No.2 is the mother-in-law, petitioner No.3 is thebrother-in-law and petitioner No.4 is the sister-in-law of the informant /respondent No.2.5The informant averred in the report that she married withaccused No.1 on 4th May, 2021 by giving an amount of dowry ofRs.1,00,000/- alongwith 5 grams gold ring. It is further averred by theinformant that after the marriage, she was treated well for about sixmonths. Thereafter, her husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law andthe sister-in-law started to demand Rs.1,00,000/- for starting a newbusiness from her parents. They abused her in filthy language andalso beat her by kick and fist blows. The informant was kept onstarvation. They did not provide the new clothes to the informant when 3W.P.519.2024.odtrequired. The informant told that harassment to her mother, brotherand other relatives. The informant’s side tried to convince the in-lawsof the informant and requested them not to ill-treat her. But no changewas noticed in the conduct of the petitioners. When the informant fellill, her in-laws refused to take her to the hospital for treatment. Theinformant called her mother and brother to convince the petitioners.When they arrived at the matrimonial house of the informant, thepetitioners abused and threatened them and expelled the informantand her relatives out of the house. The husband of the informantabused and beat the informant by kick and fist blows. The informantwas willing to cohabit with her husband, however, all the accusedcontinued to demand that amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. She could not fulfillthat demand. Therefore, she was expelled from the house. Therefore,she lodged the report. 6The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that thepetitioners are falsely implicated in the crime. They never made anydemand of amount. They have not beaten the informant. Theinformant has lodged false report against the petitioners. There is noreliable evidence against the petitioners to proceed further with thetrial. If the petitioners are directed to face the trial, in suchcircumstances, it would certainly be an abuse of the process of theCourt. He lastly prayed to allow the petition by quashing the report 4W.P.519.2024.odtand the consequential charge-sheet, pending against the petitioners.7The learned APP for the State strongly opposed thepetition and submitted that the report is lodged on 11th December, 2023and the marriage of the informant with accused No.1 was performedon 4th May, 2021. After six months of the marriage, the petitionersstarted to harass the informant. Their names are mentioned in thereport. Not only demand of Rs.1,00,000/- was made, but the informantwas also beaten. The petitioners abused the informant and expelledher from the house for demand of Rs.1,00,000/-. He lastly prayed toreject the petition. 8The learned counsel for respondent No.2 also stronglyopposed the petition and submitted that the petitioners are involved inthe serious crime of treating the informant with cruelty and there is nojustification to allow this petition. He submitted that after six months ofthe marriage, the husband of the informant and the petitionersdemanded Rs.1,00,000/- to the informant for starting a new business.They were keeping the informant starved. They were not purchasingclothes for her. All these acts constitute the offence punishable underSections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC. He submitted that thereis strong evidence against the petitioners about the said demand. Helastly prayed to reject the petition. 5W.P.519.2024.odt9We have perusal the report and the charge-sheet,particularly, the statements of the witnesses. 10Here, 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. 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....” 6W.P.519.2024.odt11A reference can be made to the judgment in the case ofCBI vs. Aryan Singh, reported in, 2023 SCC Online SC 379, in whichthe 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.”12The brother, mother and the uncle etc. of the informanthave stated in their statements that the informant was harassed bydemanding Rs.1,00,000/- for starting a new business. They havefurther stated that some meetings were held, however, the accusedcontinued to harass the informant. The brother of the informant hasstated that the informant is residing with him since last one and halfyears. She was expelled from the house for the amount forRs.1,00,000/-, which was not paid by him. The learned counsel for theinformant though submitted that the names of the petitioners arementioned in the report, no specific incident is stated as to when thesepetitioners treated the informant with cruelty by demandingRs.1,00,000/- and beat her by kick and fist blows. In support ofbeating to the informant, there is no evidence of medical treatment.The main allegations are made against the husband of the informantand his petition has been withdrawn. The omnibus allegations are
Decision
8W.P.519.2024.odtII.The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause(B) to the extent of petitioner Nos.2 to 4.III.The criminal writ petition stands disposed of. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]nga