High Court
Legal Reasoning
6APPLN.1353.2022.odtThe wife of Prashant Ainile namely, Chhaya Ainile has also filedcomplaint against the informant that she is having an illicit relationshipwith her husband. These complaints dated 28th September, 2021 and8th October, 2021 are submitted much prior to lodging of the reportdated 9th December, 2021. After filing of the petition for divorce on theground of illicit relationship of the informant with said Prashant Ainile, itappears that the report is lodged against the applicants and thehusband of the informant. In such situation and on reading of thereport, we are of the view that no specific incident inspiring confidenceis stated by the informant in the report. The report is lodged after filingof H.M.P. No.167 of 2020 for divorce by the husband of the informant.In such fact situation and from the report and the statements of thewitnesses, we are of the view that the essential ingredients of Section498-A, 323, 504 and 506 are not establishing against applicant Nos.2to 6. 11A 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 thestage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminalproceedings, while exercising the powers underSection 482 Cr. P.C., the Court is not required toconduct the mini trial.” 7APPLN.1353.2022.odt12The application of applicant No.1 is already withdrawn.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and abovereasons, compelling applicant Nos.2 to 6 to face the trial, wouldcertainly be an abuse of the process of the Court. We are therefore,inclined to partly allow the application by exercising our inherentpowers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of theprocess of Court. The application, therefore, deserves to be partlyallowed. Hence, the following order:-O R D E RI.The application of applicant No.1 is already dismissedas withdrawn by order dated 25th April, 2022.II.The application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses(B) and (B-1), to the extent of applicant Nos.2 to 6.III.The application stands disposed of. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]nga
Arguments
1APPLN.1353.2022.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1353 OF 20221.Balaji S/o Bibhishan Sagar.2.Savita W/o Bibhishan Sagar.3.Bibhishan S/o Baburao Sagar.4.Mahadev S/o Bibhishan Sagar.5.Shankar S/o Bibhishan Sagar.6.Vaishnavi W/o Suresh Alte.… ApplicantsVersus1.The State of Maharashtra.2.Jyoti W/o Balaji Sagar.… Respondents...Mr. Sandeep C. Swami, Advocate for Applicants.Mr. S. A. Gaikwad, APP for Respondent No.1 / State.Mr. Prashant B. Jadhav, 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. 2This is an application under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) for quashing the 2APPLN.1353.2022.odtproceedings in R.C.C. No.45 of 2022, pending in the Court of thelearned Judicial Magistrate First Class 5th, Latur, arising out of FIRbearing C.R. No.789 of 2021, dated 9th December, 2021, registeredwith M.I.D.C. Police Station, Taluka and District Latur, for the offencespunishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).3The application of applicant No.1 was already withdrawnon 25th April, 2022. Applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the parents-in-law,applicant Nos.4 and 5 are the brothers-in-law and applicant No.6 is thesister-in-law of the informant. 4It is averred in the report by the informant that hermarriage with accused No.1 was solemnized on 23rd March, 2018 asper Hindu customs and traditions. In her marriage, five tolas gold wasgiven. Initially she was treated well for one and half years, until shegave birth to a baby girl. Thereafter, on the instigation of applicantNos.2 to 5, her husband started to abuse, beat and keep the informanton starvation. When she told that fact to her mother-in-law, brothers-in-law and sister-in-law, they also started to abuse her. All theapplicants demanded to her Rs.1,00,000/- for opening a new groceryshop. When she could not pay that amount, she was expelled fromthe house. On 28th September, 2021, when the informant went to the 3APPLN.1353.2022.odthouse of her husband for cohabitation, all the applicants said that theinformant should not come in their house, they are giving divorce toher and if the informant wants to come there, she should come withRs.1,00,000/- for starting a new grocery shop. At that time, theyabused and assaulted the informant by kick and fist blows. They alsothreatened to kill her and expelled her from the house. On 4th October,2021, the informant filed a complaint with the Women’s GrievanceRedressal Center, Superintendent of Police Office, Latur forcompromise. The applicants refused to take the informant back forcohabitation. Thereafter, she lodged the report. 5The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that falseallegations are made against the applicants. The applicants nevertreated the informant with cruelty. They never demandedRs.1,00,000/-. The report is vague and omnibus allegations are madeagainst the applicants. No specific incident is stated in the report andthe statement of witnesses. In such circumstances, exercising ourinherent powers in favour of the applicants for quashing theproceedings is necessary. He lastly prayed to allow the application. 6The learned APP for the State strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that the role of the applicants is specified inthe report. They have demanded Rs.1,00,000/- for starting a new 4APPLN.1353.2022.odtgrocery shop to the informant. She was beaten and harassed. Hefurther submitted that there is strong evidence against the applicantsconstituting the essential ingredients of section 498-A, 323, 504 and506 of the IPC. He lastly prayed to reject the application. 7The learned counsel for the informant / respondent No.2also strongly opposed the application and submitted that the marriageof the informant with accused No.1 was performed on 23rd March, 2018and the report was lodged on 9th December, 2021. After one and halfyears, she was harassed for the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for starting anew grocery shop. Thereafter, she was beaten and kept on starvation.She was abused by the applicants. All these allegations are supportedby the evidence of witnesses. He submitted that there is strongevidence against the applicants and therefore, it is necessary toproceed against the applicants with the trial. He lastly prayed to rejectthe application. 8We have perused the report and the charge-sheet.9In the contextual situation, it is also relevant to refer to thedecision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Mohammad Wajid andAnother Vs. State of U.P. and Another, reported in, 2023 SCCOnline SC 951; 2023 INSC 683, whereunder the HonourableSupreme Court held thus: - 5APPLN.1353.2022.odt“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 alleged offenceare disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatiousproceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into manyother attending circumstances emerging from therecord of the case over and above the averments and,if need be, with due care and circumspection try toread in between the lines. The Court while exercisingits jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only tothe stage of a case but is empowered to take intoaccount the overall circumstances leading to theinitiation/registration of the case as well as thematerials collected in the course of investigation....”10The main allegations are made against the husband of theinformant and his application has been withdrawn. No doubt thestatements of witnesses are supporting to the informant’s report,however, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that thedivorce petition i.e. H.M.P. No.167 of 2020 is filed by the husband ofthe informant, in which compromise is effected, which is signed by theinformant. The learned counsel for the applicants also pointed out acopy of the application submitted to the S.P. Office, Latur, alleging thatthe informant is having an illicit relationship with one Prashant Ainile.