High Court
Legal Reasoning
cran1796.23--1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1796 OF 2023 Sandesh s/o Arunkumar Mundada ...Applicant versus 1.The State of Maharashtra 2.Monali w/o Sandesh Mundada ...Respondents ANDCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1216 OF 20231.Arunkumar s/o Somnath Mundada2.Sharda w/o Arunkumar Mundada3.Suchita d/o Arunkumar Mundada...Applicants versus 1.The State of Maharashtra 2.Monali w/o Sandesh Mundada ...Respondents …..Mr. Rahul G. Joshi, advocate for applicantsMr. N.R. Dayama, A.P.P. for respondent No.1Mr. Sachin S. Panale, advocate for respondent No.2 ….. CORAM:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATED:25th FEBRUARY, 2025 PER COURT (PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.):-1.Both these applications are filed for invoking the inherentpowers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973, seeking quashment of first information report (forshort “the F.I.R.”) No. 0007 of 2022 registered with Gangapur police cran1796.23--2- station, district Aurangabad for the offences punishable underSections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. as well as the charge sheetNo. 76 of 2022 i.e. R.C.C. No. 211 of 2022 pending before thelearned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gangapur. 2.Learned advocate for the applicants pointed out the report,in which it is averred that, the marriage of the respondent No.2 i.e.informant Monali was solemnized with Sandesh, the applicant incriminal application No. 1796 of 2023 on 19.3.2020 at Aurangabad.The couple is blessed with a male child. The applicant Sandesh wasserving in Dubai at the time of marriage and thereafter also.3.The applicant Nos. 1 and 2 in application No. 1216 of 2023are in laws of the informant and applicant No.3 is her sister-in-law,who is serving as a teacher. It is averred in the report that all theapplicants and the informant were residing under one roof. All theapplicants have treated her well for 1-2 months after the marriage.After marriage, the husband of the informant could not go to Dubaibecause of Covid-19 pandemic. The applicants after 1-2 months ofthe marriage started harassing the informant saying that nothing isgiven in the marriage, She is not able to work property. When shetold the said fact to her husband, he did not pay any heed to her. Herhusband on the say of his sister, used to harass the informant. After
Legal Reasoning
cran1796.23--3- marriage, for three months, mother-in-law of the informant took themobile hand set of the informant with her when she went for deliveryof another sister in-law. All the applicants were frequently tauntingher. The applicant No.3 in application No. 1216 of 2023, used to saythat the informant has to stay there like a servant and she has to dothe work as per their say. When she communicated about the saidharassment to her parents, they asked her to wait for some time sothat everything will be alright in the future. 4.It is further averred in the report that in the month ofSeptember, 2020, the informant was taken by her husband to Dubai.The applicants were making phone calls to her husband and uponinstigation, he was abusing her. As she was in foreign country, shebore that harassment. Even the other applicants were scrutinizing thelist of purchased grocery items and questioning her as to why hadshe purchased such an excessive quantity of grocery items. In themonth of December, 2020, the informant was sent back to India. Atthat time, she was pregnant. The applicants were taunting her bysaying that there were many proposals of marriage for the husbandof informant, who were ready to pay huge amount of dowry but theyaccepted the proposal of informant as they wanted a woman to dohouse chores and therefore, her marriage is performed withSandesh. Hence, they were saying that she has to work as per their cran1796.23--4- say. The informant gave birth to a male child. However, herharassment was continued. Her father also convinced the applicants,but they did not pay any heed to him. It is also averred that theapplicants called the brother of the informant at Aurangabad, theytook out the gold and silver ornaments from her person and expelledher from the house. Subsequently, when she along with her fatherwent to reside at her matrimonial house, the applicants demandedRs.7,00,000/- towards the expenses incurred by them for marriageand threatened that unless she pays that amount, she cannot residethere. Thereafter also, the father of the informant went to convinceher father-in-law but he did not pay any heed to him and threatenedthat he will publish a news in the newspaper and send him to jail andthe police cannot do anything to him. The informant sent a notice toher husband and prayed for taking her for cohabitation. However, thenotice is replied with false contentions. The applicants haveconcealed the medical documents of her and her son. Thereafter,the informant lodged the report on 28.1.2022.5.Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that theinformant is not ill-treated by any of the applicants. The cruelty ascontemplated under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. is notestablishing either from the report or from the statements of thewitnesses. He submitted that the informant is not willing to cohabit cran1796.23--5- with the applicant - Sandesh. She had lodged the false report. Hepointed out the notice sent by the informant which was replied by theapplicant - Sandesh. He submitted that the alleged demand ofRs.7,00,000/- was never made by the applicants. No specific date isstated either in the report or in the statements of the witnesses as towhen that amount of Rs.7,00,000/- was demanded. The otherallegations which are made in the report, were not mentioned in thenotice sent by the informant to her husband. All the allegations arefalse and not constituting the offences punishable under Sections498-A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. He submitted that if the applicants aredirected to face the trial in such a situation certainly it would be anabuse of process of the court. He therefore, prayed to exercise theinherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the reportas well as the charge sheet filed against the applicants. 6.Learned A.P.P. for respondent No.1 State has stronglyopposed the applications and submitted that within two years of themarriage, report has been lodged. Even after the informant wasblessed with a male child the applicants continued to treat her withcruelty by demanding an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to the informant.There are serious allegations of illegal demand and harassment onthe part of the applicants. There is no legal ground to quash the saidreport and the charge sheet. It is lastly prayed to reject the cran1796.23--6- applications. 7.Learned advocate for respondent No.2-informant submittedthat the name of the applicants are mentioned in the report. Theyhave treated the informant with cruelty continuously from the date ofmarriage till the lodging of the report. There are serious allegationsof demand of Rs.7,00,000/- which constitute the offence of crueltyunder Section 498-A of I.P.C. He submitted that considering theperiod of cohabitation of the informant with her husband, thoughreport is not immediately lodged, the harassment was continued foryears together. He submitted that the essential ingredients ofSection 498-A of I.P.C. are establishing against the applicants.Therefore, he prayed to reject the application. 8.Perused the report and the charge sheet.9.In the contextual situation it is also relevant to refer to thedecision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Mohammad Wajidand Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another, reported in, 2023 SCCOnline SC 951; 2023 INSC 683, wherein the Honourable SupremeCourt held thus: -“34.……. it will not be just enough for the Court tolook into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alonefor the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary cran1796.23--7- ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosedor not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Courtowes a duty to look into many other attendingcircumstances emerging from the record of the case overand above the averments and, if need be, with due careand circumspection try to read in between the lines. TheCourt 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 takeinto account the overall circumstances leading to theinitiation/registration of the case as well as the materialscollected in the course of investigation....”10.In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. GolcondaLinga Swamy; (2004) 6SCC 522, the Hon’ble Supreme court heldthat where an FIR did not disclose the commission of an offencewithout anything being added or subtracted from the recitals thereof,the said FIR could be quashed. 11.It is averred in the report that after 1-2 months of themarriage, the applicants were insulting the informant by saying thatshe is not able to work properly and nothing was given to them in themarriage. Her husband also did not intervene and was convinced byhis parents and sister. As per the report, in the month of September,2020, i.e. within six months of the marriage, she was taken to Dubai.She conceived and for delivery she came back. Though it is allegedthat she was harassed by abusing, there is no such supportive cran1796.23--8- evidence about it. Another incident, which the informant alleged isthat her brother was called and her gold and silver ornaments weretaken away and she was expelled from the house. But when the saidincident took place is not stated either in the report or in thestatements of the witnesses.12.Another incident which informant has stated is that whenshe went for cohabitation she was not taken in the house andRs.7,00,000/- i.e. the expenses of marriage were demanded.Thereafter again, her parents and other relatives went to convincethe father-in-law of the informant, at that time, he threatened themthat he will send them to jail. But when those incidents took place isalso not cleared either from the report or the statements of thewitnesses.13.Lastly the notices are exchanged between the informantand her husband and thereafter, the report is lodged. There areomnibus and vague allegations of alleged cruelty made against theapplicants. The incidents of alleged harassment are general in natureand those are not certain and specific. If the report and the chargesheet alongwith the above stated reasons are considered together,then it does not establish the essential ingredients of cruelty ascontemplated under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. which cran1796.23--9- are invokved against the applicants. In such a situation, it would notbe just and proper to compel the applicants to face the trial underSection 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. It would be certainly the abuseof process of the court. We are, therefore, inclined to allow theapplications. Hence, the following order:- O R D E R I.The applications are allowed.II.The F.I.R. No. 0007 of 2022 registered with Gangapurpolice for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. as well as the charge sheet No. 76of 2022 i.e. R.C.C. No. 211 of 2022 pending before thelearned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gangapur, arequashed. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)rlj/