High Court
Legal Reasoning
cran1513.23-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1513 OF 20231.Akshay s/o Narayan Kamble2.Gopabai w/o Tukaram Kamble3.Narayan s/o Tukaram Kamble4.Pramila w/o Narayan Kamble5.Tushar Jadhav 6.Archana w/o Tushar Jadhav7.Ashwini w/o Vikram Sasane8.Avinash s/o Narayan Kamble (deceased) ...Applicants versus 1.The State of Maharashtra 2.Anjali w/o Avinash Kamble ...Respondents …..Ms. Amita D. Chate, advocate for the applicants Mr. A.M. Phule, A.P.P. for respondent No.1Mr. M.M. Parghane, advocate for respondent No.2….. CORAM:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE OF RESERVING THEORDER: 24.02.2025DATE OF PRONOUNCING ORDER: 18.03.2025ORDER (PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.):- 1. By this application, filed under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants are seeking quashment ofFirst Information Report (for short “F.I.R.”) No. 10 of 2023, registeredwith Nanded (Rural) police station, District Nanded, for the offencespunishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. as cran1513.23-2- well as the consequential criminal case bearing R.C.C. No. 1104 of2023, pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3,Nanded. 2.Learned advocate for the applicants pointed out the reportdated 07.01.2023, in which the informant has stated that she marriedwith applicant No.8 Avinash (now deceased), who was son ofapplicant Nos. 3 and 4. Applicant No.1 is brother-in-law, applicantNo.2 is grand mother-in-law, applicant Nos. 6 and 7 are the marriedsisters-in-law of the informant whereas applicant No.5 is husband ofapplicant No.6. 3.The informant was married on 23.04.2018. After marriage,she started residing with her husband at Pune. The applicants,initially, for a period of six months, treated her well. However,thereafter, they started to ill-treat her. Her husband used to doubt hercharacter and beat her. When she gave birth to a baby girl at herparental home, nobody from her matrimonial home turned up thereto meet her and her daughter. The in-laws used to visit Punefrequently. They and all the applicants were instigating her husbandand upon the said instigation, her husband used to beat her. Theyused to doubt her character when she used to talk on mobile phone.Once applicant No.1 beat her by a steel bucket by doubting her cran1513.23-3- conversation on the mobile phone. 4.It is further averred in the report that when the husband ofapplicant No.7 Vikram Sasane was suffering from Covid-19pandemic, for his treatment, the applicants had demanded an amountof Rs.2,00,000/- from the father of informant. The father of theinformant had transferred the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in theaccount of her husband. The husband of applicant No.7 died in themonth of March, 2021. In the month of April, 2021, informant’shusband Avinash also suffered from Covid-19 pandemic and died on23.5.2021, at Aurangabad. The incident of death of informant’shusband was not informed to her. When she came to know about it,after 15 days, she came to Wadgaon Kolhati, Waluj, districtAurangabad, at that time, all the applicants scolded her by sayingthat she did not attend the funeral of her husband, and now for whatshe has come there. She was expelled from the house on18.11.2022 alongwith some home appliances. She therefore,returned to her parental home. Thereafter, the informant had filed acomplaint with Women Grievance Redressal Cell, at Nanded againstthe applicants for compromise. On 18.12.2022, instead of remainingpresent at the Women Grievance Redressal Cell, applicant no. 1, 2, 3and 5 visited the house of parents of informant at Ravinagar,Nanded. At that time, applicant nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 threatened her as
Legal Reasoning
cran1513.23-4- to why she made an application to the Women Grievance RedressalCell. They abused and threatened to kill her. Therefore, she lodgedthe report on 07.01.2023 against these applicants. 5.Ms. Chate, learned advocate for the applicants submittedthat the applicants are falsely implicated in this crime. They have nottreated the informant with cruelty. The informant is residing with herparents. Her husband had also made a complaint to the police inwhich he had made allegations against the informant and her brother.Learned advocate for the applicants further pointed out thestatements of witnesses and submitted that vague allegations aremade against the applicants. The essential ingredients of Sections498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. are not establishing from thereport and the charge sheet. She submitted that if the applicants arecompelled to face the trial, they would certainly suffer and it would bean abuse of process of the Court. It is lastly prayed to allow theapplication by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 ofCr.P.C. in the interest of justice. 6.Learned A.P.P. for respondent No.1-State submitted thatthe names of the applicants are specifically mentioned in the report.They, in furtherance of their common intention, treated the informantwith cruelty. They have harassed her by demanding an amount of cran1513.23-5- Rs.2,00,000/-. Applicant No.1 has beaten her by a steel bucket. Theinformant was expelled from the house alongwith the homeappliances. On account of doubting about her character, theapplicants threatened to kill her. It is lastly prayed to reject theapplication. 7.Learned advocate for respondent No.2 informant submittedthat the informant was treated with cruelty by demanding an amountof Rs.2,00,000/-. Applicant Nos. 3 and 4 are in-laws who havedoubted her character when she used to talk on mobile. Though thedemand of Rs.2,00,000/- required for treatment of illness of husbandof applicant No.7 was fulfilled by the father, her ill-treatment wascontinued. The applicants’ role is spelled out from the report and thestatements of witnesses. It is lastly prayed to reject the application.8.We have perused the report and the charge sheet.9.Here, it would be 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 cran1513.23-6- into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for thepurpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients toconstitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolousor vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look intomany other attending circumstances emerging from the recordof the case over and above the averments and, if need be, withdue care and circumspection try to read in between the lines.The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 ofthe CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrictitself only 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....”10.A reference can be made to the judgment in the case ofCBI vs. Aryan Singh, reported in, 2023 SCC Online SC 379, inwhich the Honourable Supreme Court held that 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 Court isnot required to conduct the mini trial.”11.The first allegation of the informant is that after she gavebirth to a baby girl, nobody turned up to visit her. Whenever shestays at her matrimonial home and used to make phone calls to herparents, all the applicants used to doubt about her character. Theyused to snatch the mobile hand set from her hands. Applicant No.1 cran1513.23-7- once assaulted her by a steel bucket. The amount of Rs.2,00,000/-was demanded by the applicants for treatment of husband ofapplicant No.7 and the same was deposited by the father of theinformant in the account of her husband. The next allegation is thather home appliances were thrown out, out of the house and she wasalso expelled from the house. The statements of relatives of theinformant are in consonance with the allegations made in the report.The father of the informant is retired police official. The allegations inthe report and the statements of witnesses are of general natureexcept the allegations against applicant No.1, who alleged to haveassaulted with a steel bucket. To support that incident of assault bybucket, no evidence of the medical treatment is produced on record.Though, as stated by the informant, the demand of amount ofRs.2,00,000/- was fulfilled by the father of the informant by depositingit in the account of husband of the informant, her husband is no moreand there is no documentary evidence produced on record in thecharge sheet to support the said allegation. 12.As far as the allegation about doubting her character isconcerned, no specific incident is stated as to when the applicantsdoubted her character. Though in the report, at the conclusion, it isalleged that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- were demanded and for thatpurpose she was abused and slapped, no report was immediately cran1513.23-8- lodged against the applicants in respect of that incident. It appearsthat omnibus allegations are made against the applicants. ApplicantNos. 5 to 7 are residing separately and there is no evidence as towhen they went to Pune and treated the informant with cruelty andharassed her. Applicant No.2 is 80 years old lady, who is grandmother-in-law of the informant. Her role is also not stated in the reportor the charge sheet as to how and when she abused and harassedthe informant. Applicant Nos. 1 to 3 though alleged to have doubtedher character, there is no specific incident to rely upon the allegationof cruelty on account of doubting her character. 13.From the above discussion, it appears that the essentialingredients of sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. are notestablishing either from the report or the statements of the witnesses.The delay caused in lodging the report is one more reasonabledoubtful circumstance to disbelieve the informant and witnesses. Insuch circumstances, if the applicants are compelled to face the trial, itwould certainly be an abuse of process of the court. Therefore, weare inclined to exercise our inherent powers under Section 482 ofCr.P.C. in the interest of justice to prevent abuse of the process ofthe court for quashing of the report and the charge sheet lodged andfiled against the applicants. The application deserves to be allowed.Hence, the following order:- cran1513.23-9- O R D E RI.The application is allowed.II.The F.I.R. No. 10 of 2023, registered with Nanded (Rural)police station, District Nanded, for the offences punishableunder Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. aswell as the consequential criminal case bearing R.C.C. No.1104 of 2023, pending before Judicial Magistrate FirstClass, Court No.3, Nanded, are quashed as against theapplicants. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)rlj/