High Court
Legal Reasoning
1APPLN.1079.2023.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1079 OF 20231.Kavita w/o Natthu Wankhede,Age: 59 years, Occu: Household, R/o. Plot no. 87, Shramsafalya Society, Walwadi Shivar, Deopur, Behind Homeguard Office, Dhule. 2.Natthu s/o Sahebrao Wankhede,Age: 60 years, Occu: Retired, R/o. As above. 3.Bhatesh s/o Natthu Wankhede,Age: 32 years, Occu: Service, R/o. Plot no. 08, Vidya Vihar Colony, Juna Moida Road, Shahada. Tq. Shahada Dist: Nandurbar. 4.Harshal Bhatesh Wankhede,Age: 30 years, Occu: Household R/o. As Above.… Applicants(Orig. Accused Nos.2 to 5)Versus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Station Officer, Sillod City Police Station, Sillod, Dist: Aurangabad. 2.Utkarsha W/o. Indrajit Wankhede,Age: 27 years, Occu: Household, R/o. Plot no. 87, Shramsafalya Society, Walwadi Shivar, Deopur, Behind Homeguard Office, Dhule. At present C/o. Bhanudas Mangilal Patil, Shivaji Nagar, Sillod, Tq. Sillod, Dist: Aurangabad.… Respondents(Resp. No. 2 Orig. Complainant)
Legal Reasoning
2APPLN.1079.2023.odt...Mr. Pramod C. Mayure, Advocate for Applicants.Mrs. P. R. Bharaswadkar, APP for Respondent / State.Ms. Namita P. Thole, Advocate for Respondent No.2. (Appointed) ...CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE :09th April, 2025.O R D E R: (Per Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.)1Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 2This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) for quashing ofCharge-Sheet No.132 of 2022 in Crime No.192 of 2022, dated 13thOctober, 2022, registered with Sillod City Police Station, DistrictAurangabad (Rural), for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, aswell as the consequential proceedings in RCC No.01 of 2023, pendingin the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sillod. 3Applicant Nos.1 and 2 are the parents-in-law, applicantNo.3 is the brother-in-law and applicant No.4 is the co-sister-in-law ofthe informant / respondent No.2. 3APPLN.1079.2023.odt4The informant averred in the report that she married withthe son of applicant Nos.1 and 2 on 6th January, 2021. She was treatedwell till 15th January, 2021. Thereafter, all the applicants and husbandof the informant started to harass her by saying that engagementceremony was not properly performed. Her husband demandedRs.2,00,000/- for purchasing a room and buying household articles atPune. She told him that from where will her father give that amount.At that time, her husband abused her. The applicants used to say thatdon’t allow the informant to talk. They were abusing her and beatingher. 5The informant further averred that her parents-in-law(applicant Nos.1 and 2) used to say that unless they direct, she shallnot do anything. Applicant No.4 used to tell her to break the marriageand demand whatever she wanted. Applicant No.5 used to makephone call to the husband of informant and instigated him against her.All the applicants and the husband of informant expelled the informantfrom the house and warned her that unless she brings Rs.2,00,000/-,she shall not come to their house. They abused and beat her. Shewas expelled from the house by making phone call to her father andasked him to take the informant back. Accordingly, her father cameand took her back to Shivajinagar, Sillod. 4APPLN.1079.2023.odt6The informant further averred that on 25th March, 2021,her husband made phone call to the father of informant and told him tobring the informant to Pune. Accordingly, when she and her fatherwent to Pune, her husband demanded Rs.80,000/- to the father ofinformant for purchasing utensils. That amount was given by the fatherof the informant to her. She gave it to her husband. Thereafter, on 6thNovember, 2021, when the informant with her husband came atShivajinagar, Sillod to her parents’ house, her husband demandedRs.50,000/- to her father as hand loan. Her father paid that amount tohim. Thereafter, quarrel took place between the informant and herhusband on account of money. Therefore, her husband did not takeher to Pune. Thereafter, the parents of the informant took her to thehusband’s house at Pune. The informant said to her parents-in-laws(applicant Nos.1 and 2) to purchase a flat for herself and her husband.Thereafter, she questioned as to when they will purchase the flat ? Atthat time, they said the informant to fetch an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-from her father for purchasing the flat. The informant further averredthat quarrel took place between herself and her husband on 22ndAugust, 2022. Because of that, her pregnancy was terminated. Shecalled her father, who came to Pune and brought her back to Sillod.Later, she made application to the Women’s Counseling Center atSillod. Her husband came there, but he abused, assaulted, andthreatened to kill her. Applicant No.2 also abused her and applicant 5APPLN.1079.2023.odtNo.3 slapped her. Then she lodged the report. 7The learned counsel for the applicants submits that theapplicants are falsely implicated in the crime. There are vagueallegations against them. False allegations of demand of money forpurchasing a flat is made against the applicants. The witnesses havegiven false statements in support of the informant. There is no cogentand acceptable evidence against the applicants. General and omnibusallegations are made against the applicants. He lastly prayed to allowthe application. 8The 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 treatedinformant with cruelty. She lastly prayed to reject the application. 9The learned counsel for the informant / respondent No.2also strongly opposed the application. She submitted that the namesof the applicants are mentioned in the report. They are involved inserious crime. They have committed anti-social crime. She lastlyprayed to reject the application. 10Here, it is relevant to refer to the decision of theHonourable Supreme Court in Mohammad Wajid and Another Vs. 6APPLN.1079.2023.odtState 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....”11A 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:- “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.” 7APPLN.1079.2023.odt12We have perused the report and the charge-sheet,particularly, the statements of witnesses. The statements of witnessesare supporting to the informant’s allegations. The report is lodged on13th October, 2022. Notice was sent by the husband of informant to heron 12th September, 2022 through an advocate. This shows that thereport was lodged after sending of the notice by the husband ofinformant to her. From the allegations of demand made by theinformant, it is crystal clear that the demand of money was made byher husband, who is not party to this proceeding. According to thereport, money was paid to him. No specific incident is stated by theinformant as to when she said to applicant Nos.1 and 2 as to whenthey are going to purchase a flat at Pune and they said to theinformant to fetch an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from her father forpurchasing the flat. She was residing with her husband at Pune. It isnot clarified as to when applicant Nos.1 and 2 went to Pune to harassand treated the informant with cruelty by demanding the amount ofRs.15,00,000/-. The allegations against applicant Nos.3 and 4 arealso vague and general in nature. The essential ingredients ofSections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC are not establishingagainst the applicants. If all these aspects are considered togetherand on such material if the applicants are compelled to face the trial, itwould certainly be an abuse of the process of the Court. We are 8APPLN.1079.2023.odttherefore, inclined to allow the application by exercising our inherentpowers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice toprevent the abuse of the process of Court. The application, therefore,deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order:-O R D E RI.The application is allowed.II.The Charge-Sheet No.132 of 2022 in Crime No.192 of2022, dated 13th October, 2022, registered with SillodCity Police Station, District Aurangabad (Rural), forthe offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323,504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860, as well as the consequential proceedings inRCC No.01 of 2023, pending in the Court of learnedJudicial Magistrate First Class, Sillod, stands quashedas against all the applicants.III.The fees of Ms. Namita P. Thole, learned appointedcounsel for respondent No.2 is quantified atRs.5,000/- and it is to be paid through the High CourtLegal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]nga