High Court
Legal Reasoning
1criappln No.1322-2023IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1322 OF 20231.Ramsing S/o. Jagatsing Padvi 2.Kausalyabai W/o. Jagatsing Padvi 3.Durga Pradip Padvi4.Gayatri Dilip Padvi …. ApplicantsVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra2.Dipti Ramsing Padvi …. Respondents....Advocate for Applicants : Mr. V.A. Mundhe h/f Mr. S.S. ThombreAPP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. N.R. DayamaAdvocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Suniket A. Kulkarni.…CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.Dated : 28th February 2025ORDER [PER SANJAY DESHMUKH, J.] :-1.This is an application for quashing the First InformationReport (for short “the F.I.R.”) and charge-sheet in R.C.C. No.213 of2024, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,Nandurbar, arising out of Crime bearing No.51 of 2023, registered atUpanagar Police Station, Dist. Nandurbar on 28.02.2023, for the 2criappln No.1322-2023offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 420, 504, 506, 509 read with 34of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the I.P.C.”).2.After hearing both the sides, when this Court expresseddisinclination to grant any relief to applicant No.1/husband, learnedAdvocate for the applicants sought withdrawal of the application tothe extent of this applicant. Therefore, the present application isdismissed as withdrawn as against applicant No.1 and the matter isproceeded for the reliefs claimed by applicant Nos.2 to 4.3.Learned Advocate for the applicants pointed out thereport dated 28.02.2023, in which respondent No.2/informantaverred that applicant No.1 is her husband, applicant No.2 is hermother-in-law and applicant Nos.3 and 4 are her sisters-in-laws.4.The informant further averred that she married withapplicant No.1 on 10.06.2008. She had begotten two daughters viz.Kalyani aged 13 years and Omakshi aged 10 years. Initially, after themarriage, she was treated well for two years, but when seconddaughter was born, the applicants started to harass her over pettyissues. Applicant No.1/husband used to beat her. Therefore, she oftenwent to her mother’s house and stayed there. She was hopeful that 3criappln No.1322-2023the attitude of her husband and the applicants will change and wisecounsel will prevail over her. However, change in the attitude was notnoted and her harassment was increased. 5.The informant further averred that, in December 2021,she suffered from high B.P. Even though she was suffering from highB.P., her husband beaten her. Therefore, she made telephone call toher mother and called her at Singhpur, Dist. Nandurbar and went toher parental house. At that time, daughters were ready to come withher, but the applicants forcibly took them away from her custody. Theapplicants wouldn’t let her meet the daughters. After one month, herdaughters informed that their father is beating them. Therefore, shewent and fetch her daughters at her parental house. Her husband wasfrequently giving threats and hurled in filthy words.6.The informant further averred that she is serving in thePanchayat Samiti Office at Akkalkuva, Dist. Nandurbar. ApplicantNo.1/husband used to come to her office frequently and abuse her.The dispute between them was tried to be compromised for five to sixtimes, but nobody was in a position to listen her. Therefore, theinformant made a complaint to the Women Grievances Redressal Cell,but in vein. Therefore, she lodged a report against the applicants. 4criappln No.1322-20237.Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that frombare reading of the report, cruelty is not establishing as contemplatedby Section 498-A of I.P.C. The informant is not willing to cohabit withapplicant No.1/husband and his family members. She is unnecessarilyharassing the applicants as she is having employment in thePanchayat Samiti Office at Nandurbar. No specific incident is statedas to when she was treated with cruelty by the applicants. ApplicantNos.3 and 4 are married sisters-in-law and they are residing with theirhusbands. The omnibus and vague allegations are made against theapplicants. In such facts and circumstances, if these applicants arecompelled to face the trial, it would certainly be an abuse of processof court.8.Learned Advocate for the applicants pointed out thatrespondent No.2/informant had filed divorce petition and applicationfor granting custody of the daughters under Section 97 of the Code ofCivil Procedure. Applicant No.1/husband also sent notice to theinformant for cohabitation. He submitted that statements of thewitnesses in the charge-sheet are also vague and no specific incidentis stated by these witnesses.9.Learned APP for the State strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that the applicants are involved in the
Legal Reasoning
5criappln No.1322-2023serious crime. They have treated the informant with cruelty. Theinformant is having two daughters which shows that she cohabitedwith applicant No.1/husband for considerable period in spite offacing cruel treatment given by the applicants. He further submittedthat names of the applicants are mentioned in the F.I.R. Infurtherance of their common intention, the applicants have treatedthe informant with cruelty by frequently harassing her. Hence, heprayed for rejection of the application.10.Learned Advocate Mr. S.A. Kulkarni, for respondentNo.2/informant submitted that the applicants are involved in theserious crime. They have frequently harassed the informant and beather. They have even forcibly took the daughters. Therefore, theinformant was compelled to file the legal proceeding for the custodyof her daughters. Considering the serious allegations of mental andphysical cruelty subjected to the informant, it is lastly prayed to rejectthe application.11.In the contextual situation, it is also relevant to refer tothe decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Wajid andAnother Vs. State of U.P. and Another, reported in 2023 SCC OnlineSC 951; 2023 INSC 683, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court heldthus :- 6criappln No.1322-2023“34….. it will not be just enough for the Court to look intothe averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purposeof ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitutethe alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous orvexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into manyother attending circumstances emerging from the record of thecase over and above the averments and, if need be, with duecare and circumspection try to read in between the lines. TheCourt while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of theCrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itselfonly to the stage of a case but is empowered to take intoaccount the overall circumstances leading to theinitiation/registration of the case as well as the materialscollected in the course of investigation….”12.We have perused the report and charge-sheet.Respondent No.2/informant has stated that applicant No.1/husbandwas frequently beating and abusing her. General allegations are madethat all the applicants were treating the informant with cruelty andused to beat her. However, no specific incident with specific period isstated as to when the informant was treated with cruelty by theapplicants. The applicants’ role is not specific and the allegations areof general nature that they treated the informant with cruelty.13.To constitute the offence of cruelty, the essentialingredients of Section 498-A of the I.P.C. against these applicants arenot appearing either in the report or the statements of witnesses. 7criappln No.1322-2023Omnibus allegations are made against these applicants and therefore,the same are not sufficient to establish the cruelty as contemplated bySection 498-A of the I.P.C. There is no injury certificate in support ofthe informant’s case that she was beaten and she sustained injury toinvoke Section 323 of the I.P.C. against the applicants. Considering allthese aspects, particularly the documentary evidence as discussedabove, there is no such evidence against the applicants to constitutethe offence for which they are prosecuted.14.In case of Kim Wansoo Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 17, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inpara 9 of the judgment, has held as under :“9.In State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, thisCourt again held that where an FIR did not disclose thecommission of an offence without anything being addedor subtracted from the recitals thereof, the said FIR couldbe quashed.15.Considering above reasons and the ratio laid down in thecase of Mohammad Wajid (Supra) and Kim Wansoo (Supra), we are,therefore, inclined to allow the application by exercising our inherentpowers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., for quashing the report andcharge-sheet against applicant Nos.2 to 4. The application deserves tobe allowed. Hence, the following order. 8criappln No.1322-2023ORDERI)The application is dismissed as withdrawn as against applicant No.1. II)The application stands allowed to the extent of applicant Nos.2 to 4.III)The First Information Report and charge-sheet in R.C.C.No.213 of 2024, pending before the learned JudicialMagistrate First Class, Nandurbar, arising out of Crimebearing No.51 of 2023, registered at Upanagar PoliceStation, Dist. Nandurbar on 28.02.2023, for theoffences under Sections 498-A, 323, 420, 504, 506, 509read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, standsquashed and set aside as against applicantNo.2 Kausalyabai W/o. Jagatsing Padvi, No.3 DurgaPradip Padvi and No.4 Gayatri Dilip Padvi. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ] JUDGE[ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGEasd