High Court · 2022
Legal Reasoning
cria-1544.221 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1544 OF 20221) Deepak S/o Premchand Agrawal (Husband), Age-31 years, Occu:Private Service,2) Manju Premchand Agrawal (Mother-in-law), Age-59 years, Occu:Housewife,(As per order dated 20th October 2022, Application as regards Applicant Nos.1and 2, came to be dismissed as withdrawn)3) Premchand Parasram Agrawal, (Father-in-law), Age-63 years, Occu:Retired, All R/o-Row House No.6, Behind Orange City Best Prize Mall, Paithan Road, Tq. and Dist-Aurangabad, 4) Yogesh Premchand Agrawal, (Brother-in-law), Age-34 years, Occu: Private Service, R/o-C/o-G. Raghuvendra, Shri Ketki Nilavam, Plot No.898, Siddiq Nagar, Hyderabad- 500 084,5) Dilip Madanlal Varma @ Kumavat, Age-63 years, Occu:Contractor, R/o-Ashtvinayak Enclave, Nearby Shrimaya, Bansilal Nagar, Aurangabad. ...APPLICANTS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through P.S. Jintur, Parbhani, Tq-Jintur, Dist-Parbhani, cria-1544.2222) Shradha W/o Deepak Agrawal, Age-31 years, Occu:Service, R/o-C/o-Pradeep Agrawal, Market Yard, yeldari Road, Jintur, Tq-Jintur, Dist-Parbhani. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. B.N. Magar Advocate for Applicant Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Mr. A.D. Wange, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr. R.L. Chhabda Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 28th JANUARY 2025DATE OF PRONOUNCING ORDER : 14th FEBRUARY 2025 ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] :1.Present Application has been filed, initially for quashing theFirst Information Report (for short “the FIR”) vide Crime No. 105of 2022 registered with Police Station, Jintur, Taluka-Jintur,District-Parbhani on 31st March 2022, for the offence punishableunder Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34of the Indian Penal Code, and by way of amendment forquashing the proceedings in R.C.C. No. 272 of 2022 pendingbefore the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jintur, Taluka-Jintur, District-Parbhani.
Legal Reasoning
cria-1544.2232.It will not be out of place to mention at the beginning itselfthat when this Court was not inclined to grant any relief toapplicant No.1 – husband and applicant No.2 - mother-in-law,learned Advocate for the applicants sought withdrawal of theapplication to the extent of applicant Nos. 1 and 2, therefore,as per order dated 20th October 2022, Application as regardsApplicant Nos.1 and 2 came to be dismissed as withdrawn. Thematter proceeded for the reliefs claimed by applicant Nos. 3 to 5.3.Heard learned Advocate Mr. Magar for applicant Nos. 3 to5, learned APP Mr. Wange for respondent No.1 and learnedAdvocate Mr. Chhabda for respondent No.2. Perused theaffidavit-in-reply of respondent No.2. In order to cut short, it canbe stated that the learned Advocates appearing for therespective parties have argued in support of their contentions.4.Respondent No.2 – informant got married to originalapplicant No.1 on 19th March 2020. She states that she wastreated properly only for 15 days and thereafter since 5th April2020, she was harassed by the applicants on trifle issues. Shestates that the applicants started demanding an amount of cria-1544.224Rs.5,00,000/- to be brought by her from her parents forpurchasing the house at Hyderabad for her brother-in-law i.e.applicant No.4. Threats were given to kill her and to performsecond marriage of her husband, taking doubts on her characterand abusing her. It is to be noted that now the presentApplication is only for the reliefs claimed by applicant No.3 –father-in-law, applicant No.4 – brother-in-law and applicantNo.5, who is not related at all. Important point is that applicantNo.4 is the elder brother of applicant No.1, who resides atHyderabad in connection with his service. The informant has notgiven the details since when applicant No.4 is residing atHyderabad. Further she has not stated, whether the amount ofconsideration was short by Rs.5,00,000/- and therefore, thedemand was made, because it is impossible to get a reasonablehouse for Rs.5,00,000/- in Hyderabad. Now, in her affidavit-in-reply respondent No.2 states that during Covid-19 situationapplicant No.4 was working from home i.e. from Aurangabad andshe has prayed for collection of the mobile tower location ofapplicant No.4. Though such statement that applicant No.4 wasworking from home in Covid-19 situation has been made byrespondent No.2 or by the witnesses but when the charge-sheetis filed, there is nothing in the charge-sheet to show that cria-1544.225applicant No.4 was in Aurangabad for a considerable time. Hemight be coming for visit to his parents, but that cannot becounted. Such addition made afterwards cannot be considered infavour of the informant.5.As regards father-in-law is concerned, the allegations aremade that he used to instigate the husband and was makingallegations that the informant is unable to cook food and is notgood looking. He was insisting that gold ring should have beengiven to applicant No.1 on the occasion of his birthday and onthat count, father-in-law has abused her. This cannot be an actof cruelty within the definition of Section 498-A of the IndianPenal Code. If that demand of gold ring was there on account ofbirthday of applicant No.1, that would have been restricted tothat year only and cannot be carried forward. The otherallegations are omnibus. So far as Applicant No.5 is concerned,he is not at all related, might be a family friend, but he cannotbe arrayed under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.6.The statements of the witnesses are on the same line andmainly based on the information that was passed on by theinformant. Note can be taken that lock-down started from 22nd cria-1544.226March 2020 and as aforesaid, the marriage between applicantNo.1 and respondent No.2 had taken place on 19th March 2020.Thus, when there were restrictions on the mobility of the publicat large and people were confined in the house, possibility ofverbal exchanges and daily wear and tear in the marital lifecannot be ruled out. But those acts then cannot be termed ascruelty as defined under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Codeand therefore, the application as against applicant Nos. 3, 4and 5 deserves to be allowed in the exercise of powers underSection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, followingorder:- O R D E R(I)The Applications stands allowed.(II) The proceedings in R.C.C. No. 272 of 2022pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate FirstClass, Jintur, Taluka-Jintur, District-Parbhani,arising out of the First Information Report videCrime No. 105 of 2022 registered on 31st March2022, with Police Station, Jintur, Taluka-Jintur, cria-1544.227District-Parbhani, for the offence punishable underSections 498-A, 406, 323, 504, 506 read withSection 34 of the Indian Penal Code, standsquashed and set aside as against applicant Nos. 3to 5 i.e. - 3) Premchand Parasram Agrawal, 4)Yogesh Premchand Agrawal and 5) Dilip MadanlalVarma @ Kumavat. [SANJAY A. DESHMUKH] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGEasb/FEB25