Criminal Application No. 1886 of 2024 · Bombay High Court
Case Details
1appln-1886-2024.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1886 OF 20241.Pravin s/o. Tulshiram Lanjile,Age : 28 years, Occu.as on today Nil,2.Surekha w/o Tulshiram Lanjile,Age : 52 years, Occu. H.H.,3.Tulshiram s/o Pandurang Lanjile,Age:58 years, Occu. Agri.,4.Pradip s/o Tulshiram Lanjile,Age : 22 years, Occu. Education,5.Muktai @ Muktabai Pandurang Lanjile,Age : 80 years, Occu. Nil,Applicant no.1 to 5 areR/o : Vivekanand Nagar, Naik Chauk,Udgir Ta. Udgir, Dist. Latur6.Venkat s/o Namdeo Ugile,Age : 54 years, Occ. H. H.Applicant No.6 and 7 areR/o. Nalgir, Tal, Udgir Dist. Latur7.Surnita w/o Venkat UgileAge: 48 years, Occ. H. H.Applicant No.6 and 7 areR/o. Nalgir, Tal. Udgir Dist. Latur… Applicants-VERSUS-1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Superintendent of PoliceBeed Dist. Beed2.The Police InspectorPolice Station, Ambajogai (City),
Legal Reasoning
2appln-1886-2024.odtTq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed3.Akshata w/o Pravin Lanjile, @Akshata d/o Angad FulaseAge : 27 years, Occu. H. H.R/o. Anand Nagar, Ambajogai Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed...Respondents...Mr. Ram S. Shinde for the ApplicantsMs. Ranjana Reddy Advocate for Respondent No.3Mrs. P. R. Bharaswadkar, APP for Respondents/State... CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ANDSANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED :25th APRIL 2025O R D E R (Per Sanjay A. Deshmukh J.) :- 1.This is an application for quashment of the First InformationReport (‘FIR’) vide Crime No.454 of 2023 registered at City PoliceStation Ambajogai, Tal. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed, for the offencespunishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).2.This Court while issuing notice expressed disinclination toentertain the application in respect of applicant no.1. By order dated 7thMay 2024, application was dismissed as withdrawn to the extent ofapplicant no.1. As far as respondent nos.2 and 3, during the course ofhearing this Court has shown disinclination to grant any relief to 3appln-1886-2024.odtapplicant nos.2 and 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant oninstruction seeks leave to withdraw the application as against applicantnos.2 and 3. 3.Learned Advocate for the applicants pointed out that report islodged by the respondent No.3/informant alleging that she marriedwith brother of applicant no.4 on 06.11.2022. Applicant no.4 isbrother-in-law of the informant. Applicant no.5 is grand mother-in-lawof the informant. Applicant no.6 is maternal uncle of husband of theinformant and applicant no.7 is his maternal aunt.4.Informant averred in the report that two days after the marriagewhen she went for cohabitation, her husband and all the familymembers told her not to talk with her husband and not to enter into hisroom. After the completion of entire rituals on 11.11.2022 when theinformant went to the room of her husband for sleeping, she wasexpelled by him from the room. He said to her not to come in his room.She told that incident to the family members of the informant. Theytold to follow his directions for today and then next day when sheentered in the room of her husband he said to her that he is unable toperform sexual intercourse with her. He is not able to give maritalsatisfaction to her. He has performed his marriage only to avoid dis-reputation in the society. He said that this fact is known to his parents, 4appln-1886-2024.odtmaternal uncle and aunt. Informant was frightened. She told that factto the applicants and her in-laws. She questioned them as to why thatfact was not stated to her parents prior to their marriage and why havethey cheated her. The applicants and her in-laws told to not tell thisfact to anybody and if she tells that fact to anyone they will put her inbad condition. They took out her mobile handset. They did not allowher to contact with her parents.5.Informant further averred that maternal uncle and aunt of thehusband of the informant were called at Udgir. They all started toharass the informant. Applicants said that we have planned to purchasea plot at Udgir. They demanded Rs.20,00,000/- for purchasing of thatplot. They started abusing the informant by kicks and fists and keepingher starved. She said that her parents are not able to pay that amount,they have incurred huge amount for her marriage. Informant was notallowed to talk on the phone to her parents and she was also notallowed to go out. Informant further told that on 28.12.2022 becauseof dizziness she fell down and became unconscious. She was admittedin the hospital. Her parents were called there. They took her to thehospital at Solapur. She was admitted there for one and half month.Thereafter her parents took her to their house at Ambajogai. She toldthe incident of harassment to them. The applicants and family members 5appln-1886-2024.odtof husband of the informant were called there. They did not turn up.Informant thereafter made a complaint to the Womens CounselingCenter, Ambejogai but applicants did not come there. Thereafter theinformant lodged the report. 6.The learned counsel for the applicants submits that theapplicants are falsely implicated in the crime. There are general andvague allegations against them. No specific incident is stated by theinformant in her report as to when demand of Rs.20,00,000/- wasmade for purchasing the plot. There is no cogent and acceptableevidence against applicant nos.4 to 7. He submitted that if theapplicants are compelled to face the trial, they will certainly suffer. Helastly prayed to allow the application.7.The learned APP for the State strongly opposed the applicationand submitted that the applicants are involved in the serious crime.Their names are mentioned in the report. They have demandedRs.20,00,000/- for purchasing the plot. They have treated theinformant with cruelty. He lastly prayed to reject the application.8.Learned advocate for respondent No.3-informant submitted thatthe applicants have treated the informant with cruelty. The names ofthe applicants are mentioned in the report with specific role attributed 6appln-1886-2024.odtto them in respect of demand of Rs.20,00,000/- for purchase of plotand due to non fulfillment of that demand, the informant has beenharassed frequently by the applicants. The applicants have treated theinformant with cruelty, which constitute the offences punishable underSections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. Learned advocate lastlyprayed to reject the application. 9.Here, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon’bleSupreme Court in Mohammad Wajid and Another Vs. State of U.P. andAnother, reported in, 2023 SCC Online SC 951; 2023 INSC 683,whereunder the Honourable Supreme Court held thus:-“34. .....it will not be just enough for the Court to look into theaverments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose ofascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute thealleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatiousproceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attendingcircumstances emerging from the record of the case over and abovethe averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try toread in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdictionunder Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution neednot restrict itself only 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 the materials collected inthe course of investigation.…"10.A reference also can be made to the judgment in the case of CBIVs. Aryan Singh, reported in, 2023 SCC Online SC 379, in which theHonourable Supreme Court held as under:-"Para 10... As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of dischargeand/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the 7appln-1886-2024.odtpowers under Section 482 Cr. P.C.. the Court is not required to conductthe mini trial."11.We have perused the charge sheet, particularly, FIR andstatements of the witnesses. The witnesses have stated similar facts asstated by the informant in her report. The role of applicant nos.4 and 5is not specifically stated in the report. As far as role of applicant nos.6and 7 is concerned it is stated that they said that plot is proposed to bepurchased at Udgir for which Rs.20,00,000/- were demanded but nospecific incident is stated as to when they both came there and theydemanded Rs.20,00,000/- to her. The vague and general allegations aremade by the informant. If all these aspects are considered together, thereport and charge sheet does not establish the essential ingredients ofSections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Theallegations are made against the other applicants i.e. husband andparents-in-law of the informant, however, they have withdrawn theirapplications. Considering all these aspects, if the applicants arecompelled to face the trial, it would certainly be an abuse of theprocess of Court. We are therefore inclined to exercise our inherentpowers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in favour of applicant nos.4 to7 to prevent abuse of the process of the Court in the interest of justice.The application deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order :- 8appln-1886-2024.odtO R D E Ri.Application is partly allowed.ii.The application is disposed of as withdrawn with respect toapplicant Nos.1 to 3ii.Application is allowed with respect to applicant Nos.4 to 7.First Information Report (‘FIR’) vide Crime No.454 of 2023registered at City Police Station Ambajogai, Tal. Ambajogai, Dist.Beed, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504,506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’)quashed as against applicant Nos.4 to 7. [SANJAY A. DESHMUKH J.][SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI J.] Narwade