High Court
Legal Reasoning
cran1439.23-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1439 OF 20231.Siddhesh Sanjivan VairagiAge 35 years, Occ. Service(husband of the informant(withdrawn) 2.Sanjivan Madhukar Vairagi Age 69 years, Occ. Nil(father in law of informant)3.Sunanda Sanjivan Vairagi Age 66 years, Occ. Nil,(mother in law of informant)All R/o. Shreehari Co-operativeHousing Society, Flat No.A1/2Sector 40, Seawoods,Nerul, Navi Mumbai 400 7064.Nikita Durgesh TirthkarAge 37 years, Occ. ServiceR/o. C-6, Satyam ApartmentSector 5, CBD BelapurNavi Mumbai(sister in law of informant)5.Shankar Motiram BondeAge 60 years, Occ. Nil,R/o. Silversand Co-operativeHousing Society, Flat No.601,P. No. 15, Sector 40,Seawood, Nerul, Navi Mumbai(family friend) 6.Kalpana Pundlik Haral,Age 35 years, Occ. ServiceR/o. A 6/4, Sector No.2,CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai(Family friend)...Applicants
Legal Reasoning
cran1439.23-2- Versus 1.The State of Maharashtra 2.Madhuri Siddhesh Vairagi,Age 30 years, Occ. Housework,C/o. Dilip Ramchandra ShelarShelar Cloth Stores, Bazar PethSakur, Ta. Sangamnerdistrict Ahmednagar ...Respondents …..Ms. Karishma Sarin h/f Ms. Pooja Patare, Advocate for the applicantsMrs. P.R. Bharaswadkar, A.P.P. for the respondent No.1Mr. S.S. Dixit, Advocate for respondent No.2 (absent) ….. CORAM:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATED:4th JULY, 2025 O R D E R (PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) :- 1.Heard learned advocates for the applicants and learnedA.P.P. for respondent No.1 State. 2.This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) for quashing thecriminal proceeding bearing R.C.C. No. 145 of 2022 pending beforethe Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangamner, District Ahmednagararising out of F.I.R. No. 66 of 2021 registered with Ghargaon policestation, Ta. Sangamner, district Ahmednagar for the offencespunishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of the IndianPenal Code, 1860 (for short “the I.P.C.”). cran1439.23-3- 3.After hearing for some time, when this court showeddisinclination to grant relief to applicant No.1, learned advocate forthe applicants, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw theapplication of applicant No.1. Leave granted. The application to theextent of applicant No.1 stands dismissed as withdrawn.4.The informant averred in the report that applicant Nos. 2and 3 are her parents in law, applicant No.4 is sister in law, applicantNo. 5 and 6 are the family friends of the other applicants.5The informant further averred in the report that she marriedwith co-accused Siddhesh Vairagi on 04.03.2018 as per Hindu ritesand rituals. After marriage, she went for cohabitation at Nerul, NaviMumbai, where her husband and the present applicants wereresiding. After marriage, she was treated well for five months, butthereafter the applicants and her husband abused her. ApplicantNo.4, who is sister in law of the informant used to ask her to take themeal without oil and salt, else to leave the house. When she waspregnant for four months, applicant Nos. 2 and 3 used to say her toterminate her pregnancy, as they do not want her baby. Theythreatened that they will kill her baby. 6.The informant further averred that thereafter, she went to cran1439.23-4- her parents’ house for delivery and she begotten a male childSharvin. When, after delivery, she returned to her matrimonialhouse at Narul, the applicants did not allow her to stay with them andshe was kept in a rented house. She was compelled to do the job.The applicant No.2 used to ask her to give the details of her salary.He also used to check her payment slips and clothes.7.The informant further averred that the applicants used toask her to bring an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from her father forpurchasing a plot and on that count they used to beat her. Theapplicants driven her out of the house by keeping her on starvation.Thereafter, when the informant and her father again came at Narul,applicant Nos.5 and 6, who are so called brother and daughter,respectively, of her mother in law, abused them and driven bymanhandling them. Her husband and applicant Nos. 2 and 3 had alsobeaten her by fist and kick blows. They also threatened them thatthey will not keep them alive if they again came there. They also saidthat they do not afraid to anybody, as they have sufficient money.They threatened her that unless she brings an amount ofRs.20,00,000/-, they will not take her in the house. It is with thesecontentions, the report came to be lodged by the informant.7.Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that vague cran1439.23-5- and baseless allegations are made against these applicants, withoutquoting the specific role of each of the applicants. The date and timeof allegations of abuses, beating and demand of amount ofRs.20,00,000/- for purchasing a plot, is also not specificallymentioned. All allegations are vague and general in nature. There isa delay in lodging the report. From the charge sheet, it appears thatall the witnesses whose statements are recorded are from theparental side of the informant. The said statements of the witnessescannot prove that the harassment and cruelty has been caused to theinformant. All these applicants are close relatives of the husband ofthe informant and only in order to implicate the entire family and therelatives, the report has been lodged falsely. She further submits thatthe applicants have been implicated in the crime without any basis.Therefore, she prayed to quash the proceedings. 8.Learned A.P.P. for respondent No.1 State strongly opposedthe application by submitting that the applicants have treated theinformant with cruelty, physically as well as mentally. Even theyinsisted the informant to terminate her pregnancy. There wasdemand of Rs.20,00,000/- for purchasing of a plot and on account ofnon fulfillment of the said demand, the applicants have treated theinformant with cruelty. The applicants and other accused personshave caused harassment to the informant mentally as well as cran1439.23-6- physically. The names of the applicants are mentioned in the report.The specific roles by mentioning their names are attributed to each ofthe applicants. They cannot be exonerated from the criminal liabilityunder Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of the I.P.C. It is lastlyprayed to reject the application. 9.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 :-“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 record cran1439.23-7- of 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…..”10.We have perused the report and the statements of thewitnesses. No specific incident of cruelty is stated by the informantand whatever she has stated is without quoting specific date andtime. There is no medical evidence of injuries caused to theinformant due to the alleged beating so as to establish essentialingredients of Section 323 of the I.P.C. The allegations made arevague and general in nature. There is delay in lodging the report.On the face value, it appears that the report is lodged after thoughtfrom the parental house of the informant. If all these aspects areconsidered together, the essential ingredients of the offencespunishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the I.P.C.are not establishing against the applicants. Therefore, on suchvague and general allegations, compelling the applicants to face thetrial, would be an abuse of process of the court. The case is madeout for exercise of our powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Weare therefore, inclined to allow the application, in the interest of cran1439.23-8- justice to prevent the abuse of process of the Court. Hence, thefollowing order:-O R D E R I.The application stands partly allowed. II.The R.C.C. No. 145 of 2022 pending before the JudicialMagistrate, First Class, Sangamner, District Ahmednagararising out of F.I.R. No. 66 of 2021 registered with Ghargaonpolice station, Ta. Sangamner, district Ahmednagar for theoffences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w.34 of I.P.C., are quashed and set aside to the extent ofapplicant Nos. 2 to 6 herein. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)rlj/