High Court
Legal Reasoning
1APPLN.1354.2023.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1354 OF 20231.Babulal S/o Vazir PathanAge-25 years, Occu-at present nil,R/o. village MathniTq. and District- Ahmednagar.2.Vazir S/o Rahman PathanAge- 45 years, Occu- Agri.R/o. village MathniTq. and District- Ahmednagar.3.Rizwana W/o Vazir PathanAge-51 years, Occu-R/o. village MathniTq. and District- Ahmednagar.4.Saheb Lal S/o Vazir PathanAge-29 years, Occu- Service,R/o. Village MathniTq. and District- Ahmednagar.(Now he is on duty)5.Sania Saheb Lal PathanAge- 25 years, Occu-R/o. village MathniTq. and district Ahmednagar6.Reshma Abrar JahangirdarAge-27 years, Occu-R/o. village AmrapurTq. Shevgaon and district Ahmednagar… Applicants(Ori. Accused 1 to 6) Versus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Police Inspector, Pathrdi Police Station, Tq. Pathardi & Dist. Ahmednagar.
Legal Reasoning
2APPLN.1354.2023.odt 2.Bushra W/o Babulal PathanAge- 21 years, Occu- Household R/o C/o Ahmed Abdul Shaikh, Village Pagori Pimpalgaon, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar.… Respondents(Resp.No.2 ori. Complainant)...Mr. Sandip Ramnath Andhale, Advocate for Applicants.Mr. G. A. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent / State.Mr. Arvind G. Ambetkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ...CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE :22nd July, 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 of theproceedings in R.C.C. No.70 of 2023, pending in the Court of learnedJudicial Magistrate First Class, Pathardi, District Ahmednagar, arisingout of FIR bearing Crime No.120 of 2023, dated 6th February, 2023,registered with Pathardi Police Station, Taluka Pathardi, DistrictAhmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 3APPLN.1354.2023.odt504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”). 3Applicant No.1 is the husband of the informant /respondent No.2. Applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the parents-in-law of theinformant. Applicant No.4 is the brother-in-law of the informant.Applicant No.5 is the wife of applicant No.4. Applicant No.6 is thesister-in-law of the informant. 4Respondent No.2 / informant averred in the report that herparents solemnized her marriage with applicant No.1 on 7th April, 2021in accordance with their customs and traditions. Applicant No.1 isemployed in the Indian Army and posted in Rajasthan. After themarriage, while she was residing at her matrimonial home, she wastreated properly till 10th June, 2021. Thereafter, the applicants startedto harass her mentally and physically by continuously demanding anamount of Rs.10,00,000/- from her parental home for purchasing atractor. She told them that her parents were financially weak and couldnot fulfill such a demand. Despite this, all the applicants continuouslyharassed her, kept her starved on many occasions, used abusivelanguage and beat her. Applicant No.6 frequently visited thematrimonial house and on each visit she used to abuse the informanton one pretext or another and mentally tortured her. 4APPLN.1354.2023.odt5The informant further averred that whenever her husbandreturned home on leave, under the instigation of his parents, he alsoused to treat her with cruelty by beating her with kicks and fists blows.He used to abuse her. He repeatedly demanded Rs.10,00,000/- fromher parental home. She informed her parents about the cruelty duringher visits to her parental house and also on phone. Her parents triedto convince her in-laws to stop the harassment, but their efforts were invain. 6The informant further averred that even while residing inher matrimonial home, her husband used to abuse her on the phoneon the instigation of his parents. On 10th October, 2021, while she wasat her matrimonial house, all the applicants abused her using filthylanguage, threatened her, beat her with kicks and fist blows, and said,“We do not need you, if you wish to stay here, bring Rs.10,00,000/-from your parents.” Thereafter, they threw her out of the house onlywith the clothes she was wearing. Therefore, she returned to herparental home at Pagori Pimpalgaon and narrated the entire incidentto her father. Her parents and relatives made several attempts to sendher back to her matrimonial house, but her in-laws refused to accepther back and further abused and threatened her father and relatives.7The informant further averred that on 13th August, 2022, 5APPLN.1354.2023.odtwhile she was residing at her parental home, all the applicants againvisited her parental house and demanded Rs.10,00,000/-, stating thatonly then she would be allowed to return to her matrimonial home.When she and her parents tried to convince them, the applicantsabused and threatened them and reiterated that she would not beallowed to return unless she brings an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. On20th June, 2022, she lodged a complaint against the applicants at theWomen’s Grievance Redressal Cell, Superintendent of Police Office,Ahmednagar. However, the applicants, including her husband, failed toremain present, and hence, no compromise could be arrived.Therefore, she lodged the report. 8The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that theapplicants are falsely implicated in the crime. False allegation ofdemand of money for purchasing a tractor is made against theapplicants. There is no cogent and acceptable evidence against theapplicants. Vague and general allegations are made against theapplicants. He lastly prayed to allow the application. 9The learned APP for respondent No.1 / State as well asthe learned counsel for the informant / respondent No.2 stronglyopposed the application. They both submitted that the applicants areinvolved in a serious crime. Their names are mentioned in the report. 6APPLN.1354.2023.odtThey treated the informant with cruelty. They have committed an anti-social crime. There is strong evidence against them. They lastlyprayed to reject the application. 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 look intothe averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for thepurpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients toconstitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. Infrivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty tolook into many other attending circumstances emerging fromthe record of the case over and above the averments and, ifneed be, with due care and circumspection try to read inbetween the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdictionunder Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of theConstitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a casebut is empowered to take into account the overallcircumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the caseas well as the materials collected in the course ofinvestigation....”11A reference also can be made to the judgment in the case 7APPLN.1354.2023.odtof 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 stage ofdischarge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, whileexercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Courtis not required to conduct the mini trial.”12We have perused the charge-sheet, particularly, the reportand the statements of witnesses. The witnesses have stated thesimilar facts as stated by the informant in her report. 13The informant averred in the report that the applicantsdemanded Rs.10,00,000/- for purchasing a tractor. She has not statedas to particularly when the applicants demanded that amount to her. Itis also averred by the informant that the applicants were beating herand they starved her, but exactly which of the applicant beaten andstaved her is not stated by the informant in the report. Specificincident of such harassment is not stated in the report or thestatements of the witnesses. When the informant was driven out of thehouse by making alleged demand of Rs.10,00,000/- and beating her isnot stated with the specific date of incident. The last incident ofbeating to her at parental house on 13th August, 2022, is also vaguewithout stating the role of the applicants. 8APPLN.1354.2023.odt14After considering entire material, it is crystal clear thatvague and general allegations are made against the applicants. Nospecific incident involving a demand of Rs.10,00,000/- and harassmentfor it, is stated by the informant in her report. The role of applicantNos.4 to 6 is not clearly stated, as to how they caused cruelty to theinformant. Similar is the position as to the role of the husband and theparents-in-law of the informant. 15To establish cruelty as contemplated under Section 498-Aof the IPC, it is necessary to establish its essential ingredients asdefined in it that there was a demand for money or dowry, or crueltythat drives the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury ordanger to her life, limb, or mental or physical health. There is no suchmaterial on record to show the overt act of the applicants to establishcruelty caused by them. 16It is not case of the informant that the applicants causedany injury voluntarily to the informant. There is no material to showthat the applicants intentionally insulted her with intent to provokebreach of the peace and caused criminal intimidation to the informant.The essential ingredients of Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of theIPC are not established against them. 9APPLN.1354.2023.odt17Considering all facts of the case and the above reasons, ifthe applicants are compelled to face the trial, it would certainly be anabuse of the process of the Court. We are therefore, inclined to allowthe application by exercising our inherent powers under Section 482 ofthe Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice to prevent the abuse of the processof the Court. The application, therefore, deserves to be allowed.Hence, the following order:-O R D E RI.The application is allowed.II.The proceedings in R.C.C. No.70 of 2023, pending inthe Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,Pathardi, District Ahmednagar, arising out of FIRbearing Crime No.120 of 2023, dated 6th February,2023, registered with Pathardi Police Station, TalukaPathardi, District Ahmednagar, for the offencespunishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506of the Indian Penal Code, stands quashed as againstall the applicants. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]nga