High Court

Legal Reasoning

cran1609.23-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1609 OF 20231.Mukund s/o Balasaheb PimpaleAge 33 years, Occ. ServiceR/o. C-804, GK Silver LandResidency, Phase No. III, Near Sameer Lawns, Ravet Kivale,Pune, District Pune(Husband of informant)(withdrawn) 2.Balasaheb Punjahari PimpaleAge 62 years, Occ. Agril,R/o. Dehere, Tq. NagarDistrict Ahmednagar (father in law of informant)(withdrawn) 3.Kirti w/o Balasaheb PimpaleAge 55 years, Occ. HouseholdR/o. Dehere, Tq. NagarDistrict Ahmednagar (Mother in law of informant)4.Mayur s/o Balasaheb PimpaleAge 29 years, Occ. ServiceR/o. Dehere, Tq. NagarDistrict Ahmednagar (Brother in law of informant)5.Kaveri w/o Mayur PimpaleAge 25 years, Occ. HouseholdR/o. Dehere, Tq. NagarDistrict Ahmednagar (Co-sister in law of informant)6.Priyanka w/o Swapnil DengaleAge 32 years, Occ. Household R/o. Sila Katamul, Halugurisuk P.O./P.S. Changsari, District Kamrup,(Assam State) cran1609.23-2- (Sister in law of informant)...Applicants Versus 1.The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station,Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar2.Anjali w/o Mukund PimpaleAge 29 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Karajgaon, Tq. RahuriDistrict Ahmednagar ...Respondents …..Mr. Yuvraj S. Choudhari, Advocate for the applicantsMr. V.K. Kotecha, A.P.P. for the respondent No.1Mr. Rahul R. Karpe, Advocate for respondent No.2. ….. CORAM:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATED:08th APRIL, 2025 O R D E R (PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) :- 1.This application has been filed under section 482 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) for quashing of theFirst Information Report (for short “F.I.R.”) vide C.R. No. 332 of 2023dated 27.03.2023 registered with Rahuri police station, DistrictAhmednagar for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 354,323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short“I.P.C.”) as well as the consequential criminal case bearing R.C.C.No. 234 of 2023 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,Rahuri, district Ahmednagar. cran1609.23-3- 2.After hearing both sides, when this court shown disinclinationto allow the application of applicant Nos. 1 and 2, learned advocatefor the applicants, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw theapplication to their extent. Leave granted.3.The applicant 3 is the mother-in-law, application No.4 isbrother-in-law, applicant Nos. 5 and 6 are the sisters-in-law of theinformant-respondent No.2. 4.The informant averred in the report that she married on16.5.2017 with the son of applicant No.3, who is mother-in-law of theinformant. She started to cohabit with her husband at village Dehere,Tq. and district Ahmednagar. Her husband, father-in-law, applicantNo.3 her mother in law, applicant No.4 her brother-in-law and grandmother-in-law were residing jointly under one roof. After 1½ to 2months of marriage, the informant went to reside with her husband atPune.5.The informant further averred that, in the year 2017, herhusband said to her that they have to purchase new furniture,therefore, she should fetch money from her parents for the same.She tried to convince her husband by saying that how and whyshould her parents give that amount, upon which her husband cran1609.23-4- became angry and abused her. To avoid the quarrel, she fetched anamount of Rs.1,21,000/- from her parents in her account throughonline and paid it to her husband. After that, during Dashara festival,she came to village Dehere alongwith her husband, as she hadconceived in the year 2018 her husband left her at Dehere and wentto Pune. At about 5.00 a.m. when she was sleeping in her bed room,her father in law Balasaheb came in that room, dragged and huggedher. She shouted loudly, ran out of that room and told that incident toher mother in law Kirti. At that time, her mother in law convinced herto remain silent by saying that that if she tells that incident to others,the reputation of the family will be lost and the marriage of her sisterwill not be settled. Therefore, she remained silent and did not tell it toanybody. Thereafter, she and her husband went to Pune. 6.The informant further averred that in the month of January,2019, the informant was sent at her parental home for delivery. Shebegotten a baby girl on 3.4.2019. Thereafter, on 01.04.2022, herhusband told her that nobody from her parental side should come forthe birthday of Manasvi i.e. daughter of the informant. Upon herinsistence on calling her parents her husband beat her. She calledher maternal uncle and father at Pune and told them about the saidincident. They tried to convince her husband. Thereafter, for about6-7 months, her husband did not behave properly with her. cran1609.23-5- 7.The informant further averred that, in the month of October,2022, she came for Diwali festival at Dehere. When she was in thekitchen, her father in law, Balasaheb came there and outraged hermodesty. When she screamed, at that time, her mother-in-law Kirti,brother-in-law Mayur, co-sister-in-law, Kaveri came to her and toldher that she should not tell about that incident to anybody. She waspressurized and forced to remain silent. She was also kept onstarvation and harassed mentally as well as physically.8.On 26.10.2022 at about 7.00 a.m. when she was brushingteeth, her father-in-law touched her waist. Upon which, when sheshouted, her father-in-law abused and beat her by holding her hair.The informant came out of house and made phone call to her father.Meanwhile, till her father came, her father-in-law was taken out by hisfriend. After her father came, she immediately lodged the report.9.Thereafter, the informant made complaint to Bharosa cellfor compromise. The matter was compromised. Thereafter, herhusband and mother- in-law took the informant and her daughter toPune. While she was at Pune, on instigation of applicant No.6 sister-in-law over phone, the husband and mother-in-law beat her by fistand kick blows and kept her on starvation. cran1609.23-6- 10.On 29.01.2023, the informant was abused by her husbandand mother-in-law by fist and kick blows. She was kept on starvationand harassed mentally and physically. Thereafter, by calling herfather and cousin Dnyaneshwar Balasaheb Kotkar, she was expelledfrom house alongwith her daughter Manasvi. Therefore, the reportwas lodged against the applicants, her husband and father-in-law.11.Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that theallegations made in the F.I.R. are omnibus and general in nature.There are no specific allegations of causing of cruelty against thepresent applicants. No report was lodged when the informant wasresiding with her husband. From the charge sheet, it appears that allthe witnesses whose statements are recorded are from the parentalside of the informant. The said statements of the witnesses cannotestablish that alleged cruelty has been caused to the informant. Allthese applicants are close relatives of the husband of the informantand only in order to implicate entire family members, the report hasbeen lodged, when there is no evidence against them. He furthersubmits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the crime.Therefore, he prayed to quash the report as well as the criminal case.12.Learned A.P.P. for respondent No.1 State strongly opposed cran1609.23-7- the application and submitted that the applicants have treated theinformant with cruelty, physically as well as mentally. The names ofthe applicants are mentioned in the report. The specific roles areattributed to each of the applicants by mentioning names. Theycannot be exonerated from the criminal liability for the offencespunishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C.. It islastly prayed to reject the application. 13.Learned advocate for respondent No.2-informant submitsthat the names of the applicants are mentioned in the report with theirspecific role attributed to them in respect of abuse and beating. Theapplicants have expelled the informant from house alongwith heryoung daughter. The applicants have treated the informant withcruelty, which constitute the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. Learned advocate for the informantlastly prayed to reject the application. 14.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 Court cran1609.23-8- again 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 recordof 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…..” 15.A reference can be made to the judgment in the case ofCBI vs. Aryan Singh, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 379, inwhich the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under :-“10.As per the cardinal principle of law, atthe stage of discharge and/or quashing of thecriminal proceedings, while exercising the powers cran1609.23-9- under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court is notrequired to conduct the mini trial.”16.We have perused the charge sheet, particularly the reportand the statements of witnesses. It appears that on earlier occasion,the informant had lodged such vague and omnibus report against theapplicants and others on 26.10.2022. Thereafter, the matter wascompromised. The demand of money for purchasing the furniturewas not made by the present applicants. Though there areallegations against applicant No.6 Priyanka that she made phone calland instigated the husband of informant to expel her from the house,the specific incident is not stated by the informant. From the entirecharge sheet it appears that the essential ingredients of Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. are not establishing against theseapplicants. In such situation, if the applicants are compelled to facethe trial, it would certainly be an abuse of process of the Court.Therefore, in the interest of justice and to prevent the abuse ofprocess of the Court, we are inclined to exercise our powers underSection 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the report and theconsequential criminal case. We, therefore, pass the followingorder:- O R D E RI.Criminal application stands partly allowed. cran1609.23-10- II.The application to the extent of applicant Nos. 1 and 2stands dismissed as withdrawn.III.The F.I.R. vide C.R. No. 332 of 2023 dated 27.03.2023registered with Rahuri police station, District Ahmednagarfor the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323,504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. as well as the consequentialcriminal case bearing R.C.C. No. 234 of 2023 pendingbefore the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rahuri, districtAhmednagar, to the extent of applicant Nos. 3 to 6 standquashed. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)rlj/