High Court
Legal Reasoning
1APPLN.1909.2022.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1909 OF 20221.Saurabh s/o Shamlal SoniAge: 35 years, Occ.: Business,Applicant No.1 is the husband of Respondent No. 2.2.Shamlal Satyanarayanji SoniAge: 67 years, Occ.: Nil,Applicant No.2 is the father-in-law of Respondent No. 2.3.Usha w/o Shamlal SoniAge: 61 years, Occ.: Household,Applicant No.3 is the mother-in-law of Respondent No. 2.4.Dolly d/o Shamlal SoniAge: 40 years, Occ.: Medical Practitioner,Applicant No.4 is the Unmarried sister-in-law of Respondent No.2.5.Khushbu w/o Anupam SoniAge: 37 years, Occ.: Education,Applicant No.5 is the married sister-in-law of Respondent No. 2.All R/o 100/A, Sachhidanand Nagar, Annapurna Road, Sudama Nagar, Indoor, Madhya Pradesh State.… Applicants(Ori. Accused 1 to 5) Versus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Investigation Officer, Crime No.0170/2021 Itwara Police Station, Nanded Tq. & Dist. Nanded.
Legal Reasoning
2APPLN.1909.2022.odt2.Pooja Saurabh SoniAge: 35 yrs., Occ.: Household, R/o Sarafa Bajar, Bhojalal Chowk, Devi Mandir, At. Post. Tq. Dist. Nanded.… Respondents(Ori. Complainant) ...Mr. Sandeep B. Rajebhosale, Advocate for Applicants.Mr. A. R. Kale, APP for Respondent / State.Ms. Rajshree Gudgilla, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ...CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE :26th June, 2025.O R D E R: (Per Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.)1Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 2This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) for quashing of theproceedings in R.C.C. No.83 of 2022, pending in the Court of learnedJudicial Magistrate First Class, Nanded, arising out of FIR bearingCrime No.0170 of 2021, dated 17th July, 2021, registered with ItwaraPolice Station, Taluka and District, Nanded, for the offences punishableunder Section 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the IndianPenal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”). 3APPLN.1909.2022.odt3The application of applicant No.1 was already withdrawnon 10th July, 2023. 4Applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the parents-in-law of theinformant / respondent No.2. Applicant Nos.4 and 5 are the sisters-in-law of the informant. 5Respondent No.2 / informant averred in the report that on17th May, 2009, her marriage was solemnized as per the customaryrites by her parents with the son of applicant Nos.2 and 3, resident ofSachhidanand Nagar, Indore (M.P.). After the marriage, the informantwas treated well for a period of 5 to 6 months. Thereafter, all theaccused started to treat her with cruelty. They used to abuse her,saying that they were not liking her and she had not brought dowryfrom her parental home. They were keeping her starved. Theinformant used to tell that fact to her parents whenever she visited hermaternal home on holidays.6The informant further averred that she gave birth to a sonand a daughter. On 16th March, 2020, at about 6:00 a.m., her husbandand applicant Nos.2 to 5 brought the informant to her maternal houseat Sarafa, Nanded. On the same day, all the accused persons abused 4APPLN.1909.2022.odther in filthy language, assaulted her, and demanded Rs.5,00,000/- fortheir business. They further threatened her that she should not enterin their home again and if she attempted to return, they would kill her.At that time, her parents and other relatives tried to intervene andconvince the accused, but to no avail. Since then, the informant isresiding at her maternal home in Nanded. Therefore, she lodged thereport. 7The learned counsel for the applicants submits thatapplicant Nos.2 to 5 are falsely implicated in the crime. Falseallegation of demand of money is made against them. There is nocogent and acceptable evidence against them. Vague and generalallegations are made against them. He lastly prayed to allow theapplication. 8The learned APP for the State strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that applicant Nos.2 to 5 are involved in theserious crime. Their names are mentioned in the report. They treatedthe informant with cruelty. They have committed anti-social crime. Helastly prayed to reject the application. 9The learned counsel for the informant / respondent No.2also strongly opposed the application. She submitted that applicant 5APPLN.1909.2022.odtNos.2 to 5 are involved in the serious crime. Their names arementioned in the report. They treated the informant with cruelty. Theydemanded money to the informant. She lastly prayed to reject theapplication. 10Here, it is 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 intothe averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for thepurpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients toconstitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. Infrivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty tolook into many other attending circumstances emerging fromthe record of the case over and above the averments and, ifneed be, with due care and circumspection try to read inbetween the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdictionunder Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of theConstitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a casebut is empowered to take into account the overallcircumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the caseas well as the materials collected in the course ofinvestigation....”11A reference also can be made to the judgment in the case 6APPLN.1909.2022.odtof CBI Vs. Aryan Singh, reported in, 2023 SCC Online SC 379, inwhich the Honourable Supreme Court held 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 Courtis not required to conduct the mini trial.”12We have perused the charge-sheet, particularly, the reportand the statements of witnesses. The witnesses have stated similarfacts as stated by the informant in the report. 13The main allegations of causing cruelty are against thehusband, however, his application is already withdrawn. So far asapplicant Nos.2 to 5 are concerned, general and vague allegations ofcruelty are made against them. Though the incident dated 16th March,2020 is stated by the informant, it is vaguely stated that applicantNos.2 to 5 beat her. They are implicated in the crime only becausethey are relatives of the husband of informant. Considering the abovereasons, the essential ingredients of Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506of the IPC are not establishing against applicant Nos.2 to 5. 14If the entire material is considered together, then it wouldcertainly be an abuse of the process of the Court, if applicant Nos.2 to 7APPLN.1909.2022.odt5 are directed to face the trial. We are therefore, inclined to allow theapplication to the extent of applicant Nos.2 to 5, by exercising ourinherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the interest ofjustice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. Theapplication, therefore, deserves to be partly allowed. Hence, thefollowing order:-O R D E RI.The application is partly allowed.II.The application of applicant No.1 is already disposedof as withdrawn by order dated 10th July, 2023. III.The proceedings in R.C.C. No.83 of 2022, pending inthe Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,Nanded, arising out of FIR bearing Crime No.0170 of2021, dated 17th July, 2021, registered with ItwaraPolice Station, Taluka and District, Nanded, for theoffences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code,stands quashed to the extent of applicant Nos.2 to 5only. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]nga