High Court

Legal Reasoning

cran1122.23-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1122 OF 20231.Dhanraj Namdev JadhavAge 33 years, Occ. Labour(husband)2.Shantabai Namdev JadhavAge 46 years, Occ. Household(mother in law) 3.Namdev Motiram JadhavAge 55 years, Occ. Labour(Father in law)4.Sanjay Namdev JadhavAge 28 years, Occ. Labour (brother in law) 5.Kishor Namdeo JadhavAge 25 years, Occ. Education (brother in law) All R/o. Kusumba, Tq. and district Jalgaon ...Applicants Versus 1.The State of Maharashtra Though its Pachora Police Station,Tal. Pachora, District Jalgaon 2.Deepali Dhanraj JadhavAge 31 years, Occ. Household R/o. At present Dahigaon Sant,Tal. Pachora, District Jalgaon ...Respondents …..Ms. Shilpa D. Magre h/f V.B. Patil, Advocate for the applicantsMr. G.A. Kulkarni, A.P.P. for the respondent No.1Mr. R.C. Bora, Advocate for respondent No.2 (appointed). ….. cran1122.23-2- CORAM:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATED:25th JUNE, 2025 O R D E R (PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) :- 1.Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 2.This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) for quashing theF.I.R. No. 23 of 2023 registered with Pachora police station, Tq.Pachora, district Jalgaon, dated 21.01.2023 for the offencespunishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of the IndianPenal Code, 1860 (for short “the I.P.C.”) and the consequentialcharge sheet No. 25 of 2023 and criminal case bearing R.C.C. No. 81of 2023 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pachora,district Jalgaon.3.The informant averred in the report, applicant No.1 is herhusband, applicant Nos 2 and 3 are parents in law and applicant Nos.4 and 5 brothers in law.4.The informant further averred in the report that since lastthree years she is residing at Dahegaon Sant, Tq. Pachora districtJalgaon. Her father is labourer. She married the applicant No.1 on27.4.2014. All the applicants were residing under one roof at village cran1122.23-3- Kusumba, Tq and District Jalgaon. She was initially treated well forabout one year after the marriage. She begot a baby boy, Dhruv.Her husband is an estate broker. He was in need of four wheelervehicle for attending the said job and therefore he demandedRs.2,00,000/- for it. She told him that she is unable to bring thatamount as the financial condition of her parents is poor. Theapplicants were abusing and beating her on that count. They werefrequently demanding that amount. She was driven out for thatamount. After one year, her parents convinced her and sent her toKusumba for cohabitation.5.The informant further averred that again after two years,she begot another son Yashodeep. However, her harassment fordemand of money to purchase the four wheeler vehicle wascontinued. At that time all the applicants abused her and beat her.She told that fact to her parents. Her parents and relatives camethere to convince the applicants. At that time also the applicantsabused and directed them to take their daughter back. Theapplicants refused to allow her to cohabit at Kusumba. As theparents of the informant convinced the informant to reside with theapplicants, she resided there till June, 2019. Again she washarassed. At that time, she told that fact to her parents. Her parentsand other relatives came at Kusumba and tried to convince all the cran1122.23-4- applicants, however, they abused them and threatened that unlessthe amount for purchase of four wheeler is paid, they will not allowthe informant to cohabit with her husband. Therefore, informantreturned with her parents. Thereafter, she made an application toWomen’s grievance Cell, Jalgaon but the compromise could not takeplace. Therefore, she lodged the report on 21.01.2023. 6.Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that vagueand baseless allegations are made against these applicants, withoutquoting the specific role of each of the applicants. The date and timeof allegation of demand of amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for purchasing offour wheeler is also not specifically mentioned. All allegations arevague and general in nature. There is a delay in lodging the report.From the charge sheet, it appears that all the witnesses whosestatements are recorded are from the parental side of the informant.The said statements of the witnesses cannot prove that theharassment and cruelty has been caused to the informant. Shefurther submits that the applicants have been implicated in the crimewithout any basis. Therefore, she prayed to quash the report as wellas the consequential proceedings. 7.Learned A.P.P. for respondent No.1 State and learnedadvocate for respondent No.2 strongly opposed the application by cran1122.23-5- submitting that the applicants have treated the informant with cruelty,physically as well as mentally. There was consistent demand ofRs.2,00,000/- for purchase of four wheeler and on account of nonfulfillment of the said demand, the applicants have treated theinformant with cruelty. The applicants have caused harassment to theinformant mentally as well as physically. The names of theapplicants are mentioned in the report with specific roles attributed toeach of the applicants. They cannot be exonerated from the criminalliability under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of the I.P.C. It islastly prayed to reject the application. 8.It would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’bleSupreme court in the case of Kim Wansoo Vs. State of UttarPradesh & Ors., reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 17 , in which theHon’ble Supreme Court, in paras 9 and 11 of the judgment, has heldas under :“9.In State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, this Courtagain held that where an FIR did not disclose the commissionof an offence without anything being added or subtracted fromthe recitals thereof, the said FIR could be quashed.11.In the contextual situation, it is also relevant to refer tothe decision of this Court in Mohammad Wajid and Anotherv. State of U.P. and Anr., whereunder this Court, in so far asit is relevant, held thus :- cran1122.23-6- “34…….. it will not be just enough for the Court tolook into the averments made in the FIR/complaintalone for the purpose of ascertaining whether thenecessary ingredients to constitute the allegedoffence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatiousproceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into manyother attending circumstances emerging from recordof the case over and above the averments and, ifneed be, with due care and circumspection try toread in between the lines. The Court while exercisingits jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC orArticle 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itselfonly to the stage of a case but is empowered to takeinto account the overall circumstances leading to theinitiation/registration of the case as well as materialscollected in the course of investigation…..”9.We have perused the charge sheet, particularly the report andthe statements of the witnesses. Similar facts are stated by theinformant and the witnesses. According to the informant, lastincident of harassment took place, in the month of June 2019. Thereport is lodged on 21.01.2023. Thus, the report is not lodged withinthree years thereafter as provided in Section 468 of the Cr.P.C.Thus, the report is therefore, barred by law of limitation, in view oflaw laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Vyasand another vs. Anita Vyas, reported in (1999) 4 SCC 690.Thus, compelling the applicants to face the trial, would be an abuseof process of the court. The case is made out for exercise of powers cran1122.23-7- under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. We are therefore, inclined to allowthe application, in the interest of justice to prevent the abuse ofprocess of the Court. Hence, the following order:- O R D E R I.The application stands allowed. II.F.I.R. No. 23 of 2023 registered with Pachora police station,Tq. Pachora, district Jalgaon, dated 21.01.2023 for theoffences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w.34 of the I.P.C. and the consequential charge sheet No. 25 of2023 and criminal case bearing R.C.C. No. 81 of 2023 pendingbefore the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pachora, districtJalgaon stand quashed and set aside.10.The fees of learned advocate Mr. R.C. Bora, appointed torepresent the cause of respondent No.2 is quantified at Rs.7000/- tobe paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee,Aurangabad. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)rlj/