High Court
Legal Reasoning
1APPLN.2190.2024.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2190 OF 20241.Bhushan S/o Anand Shinde,(Husband)Age: 37 Yrs, Occu: Labour, R/o Nirgudi, Tq. Dist. Beed.2.Anand S/o Kondiba Shinde(Father-in-law)Age: 63 Yrs, Occu: Labour, R/o Nirgudi, Tq. Dist. Beed.3.Shalini W/o Anand Shinde,(Mother-in-law)Age 57 Years, Occ. Household, R/o Nirgudi, Tq. Dist. Beed.4.Vinod S/o Anand Shinde(Brother-in-law)Age: 40 Years, Occu: Service,R/o Sakshi Park-2, Flat No. 202,Building-1, C-104, Sukapur, Panvel, Tq. Panvel, Dist. Raigad.5.Suhasini W/o Vijay Maske(Sister-in-law)Age: 34 Years, Occu: Household, R/o Asha Store, Opp. Sai Darshan Building, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Lal Dongar, Mumbai.… ApplicantsVersus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Police Inspector, Shivajinagar, Beed, Police Station, Tq. Dist. Beed.2.Poonam W/o Bhushan Shinde,Age: 29 Years, Occu: Household, R/o Sakshi Park Building, H.No. 202, Malewadi, Akurdi, Tq. Panvel, Dist. Raigad. At Present R/o Mahatma Phule Nagar, Dhanora Road, Beed, Tq. Dist. Beed.… Respondents 2APPLN.2190.2024.odt...Mr. Mahendra Panditrao Gandle, Advocate for Applicants.Smt. R. P. Gour, APP for Respondent No.1 / State.Mr. Amol Ratan Gaikwad, Advocate for Respondent No.2.…CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE :10th March, 2025.O R D E R: (Per Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.).Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 2This is an application under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) for quashing theproceedings in R.C.C. No.799 of 2022, pending in the Court of thelearned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Beed, arising out of FIRbearing C.R. No.37 of 2022, dated 23rd January, 2022, registered withShivajinagar Police Station, District Beed, for the offences punishableunder Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the IndianPenal Code (for short “the IPC”).3The application of applicant Nos.1 and 3 was alreadydisposed of as withdrawn on 19th August, 2024. The informant is thewife of applicant No.1. Applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the parents-in-law ofthe informant. Applicant No.4 is the brother-in-law and applicant No.5is the sister-in-law of the informant. 3APPLN.2190.2024.odt4It is averred in the report by the informant that hermarriage with accused No.1 was solemnized on 6th June, 2017.Initially for about two months, she was treated well. On 7th August,2017, the husband of the informant said that her father is rich,however, why he performed informant’s marriage with accused No.1.She told him that our relations are old and that her parents trusted himto take care of her and therefore, said marriage was performed. Herhusband used to taunt her. She asked as to why he is taunting her. Atthat time, her husband said her as to why she is questioning him. Thattime, he beaten her by kicks and fist blows and also slapped her.When she told that fact to her mother-in-law, she also abused theinformant and said to the informant that accused No.1 will treat her asper his way. Her mother-in-law said if the informant do not want to staywith him, she may not stay with him. That time, all the applicantsabused the informant and expelled her from the house. She told thatincident to her parents. They came there and tried to convince theapplicants. Thereafter, for some days, the informant was treatedproperly. She was conceived. She went for delivery to her parentshouse. She gave birth to a son. At that time, all the family memberscame to visit the informant and said her that now she gave birth to ason, therefore, she will require her own house. Therefore, theinformant was asked to arrange Rs.10,00,000/- for purchasing a flat. 4APPLN.2190.2024.odtThe informant was told that if she failed to arrange that amount, theywill not take her back. Thereafter, they did not return for eight months.5On 10th March, 2019, the father of informant took her backto her in-laws’ house for cohabitation. At that time, her fatherconvinced the family members not to harass the informant and treather properly. Thereafter, all the family members sat together andquestioned her as to whether the arrangement of that money is doneor not ? Her mother-in-law and sister-in-law caught hold her hair andbeaten her. Her father-in-law as well as brother-in-law also abused herand they even threatened to kill her. After considering her future, shebore that harassment. But the applicants continued demanding moneyby insulting and beating her. When she could not bear thatharassment, she made phone call to her father and told him that thefamily members are harassing her for Rs.10,00,000/- for purchasing aflat. Thereafter, her parents and other relatives came to her house.Her parents tried to convince the applicants and told them that they arenot able to pay that amount. Her parents said that the loan taken forthe marriage is not yet repaid. Thereafter, for about three months, theinformant was treated properly. Thereafter, all of a sudden, on onenight at 12:00 am, her husband beaten her with the help of Tambia onher head by saying that the informant is not following their directions.At that time all the applicants assaulted her by kicks and fist blows and
Legal Reasoning
5APPLN.2190.2024.odtkept her starved. On 22nd November, 2019, the informant was expelledfrom the house. Therefore, she went to her material aunt RajshreeYadav’s house at Ghatkopar and told that incident. The next day, shereturned to her parental home at Beed and since then she is residingwith her parents. Therefore, she lodged the report. 6The learned counsel for the applicants submitted thatfalse, vague and omnibus allegations are made against the applicants.They never treated the informant with cruelty. They never demandedRs.10,00,000/- for purchasing a flat. No specific incident is stated asto when the applicants assaulted / beaten the informant. Afterapproximately 2 and ½ years, the report has been lodged. ApplicantNo.2 is the old aged father-in-law. Applicant No.4 (brother-in-law) isresiding at Panvel, District Raigad. Applicant No.5 (sister-in-law) isresiding at Mumbai with her husband. They are falsely implicated inthe crime. The essential ingredients of Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and506 are not establishing form the report and the charge-sheet. Helastly prayed to allow the application by quashing the report and thecharge-sheet.7The learned APP for the State and the learned counsel forrespondent No.2 strongly opposed the application and submitted thatthe names of the applicants are mentioned in the report. Their roles 6APPLN.2190.2024.odtare specified. They have demanded Rs.10,00,000/- for purchasing aflat. The informant was beaten and harassed. They further submittedthat there is strong evidence against the applicants constituting theessential ingredients of Section 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC.They lastly prayed to reject the application. 8We have perused the report and the charge-sheet.9Here, 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 lookinto the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for thepurpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredientsto constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. Infrivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a dutyto look into many other attending circumstances emergingfrom the record of the case over and above the avermentsand, if need be, with due care and circumspection try toread in between the lines. The Court while exercising itsjurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 ofthe Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage ofa case but is empowered to take into account the overallcircumstances leading to the initiation/registration of thecase as well as the materials collected in the course ofinvestigation....”
Decision
7APPLN.2190.2024.odt10A reference also can be made to the judgment in the caseof CBI 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 stageof discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings,while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C.,the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial.”11The statements of parents of the informant, maternal auntand her husband, are in consonance with the report. When thealleged incident dated 22nd November, 2019, took place, no report waslodged. There is no injury certificate on record to corroborate thesame. Specific allegations are not made against applicant Nos.2, 4and 5 as to when and in which manner they abused and beaten theinformant and demanded the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for purchasingthe flat. The main allegations are against applicant Nos.1 and 3(husband and mother-in-law) that they frequently treated the informantwith cruelty. Their application has already been disposed of aswithdraw. Considering the entire charge-sheet, we find no substancein the allegations against applicant Nos.2, 4 and 5 as to the cruelty bydemanding Rs.10,00,000/- and by beating and abusing. The essentialingredients of Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 are not establishing 8APPLN.2190.2024.odtagainst applicant Nos.2, 4 and 5. Considering the facts andcircumstances of the case, compelling applicant Nos.2, 4 and 5 to facethe trial, would certainly be an abuse of the process of the Court. Weare therefore, inclined to partly allow the application by exercising ourinherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, the followingorder:-O R D E RI.The application of applicant Nos.1 and 3 is alreadydisposed of as withdrawn by order dated 19th August,2024.II.The proceedings in R.C.C. No.799 of 2022, pendingin the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate FirstClass, Beed, arising out of FIR bearing C.R. No.37 of2022, dated 23rd January, 2022, registered withShivajinagar Police Station, District Beed, for theoffences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, isquashed to the extent of applicant Nos.2, 4 and 5only.III.The application stands disposed of. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]nga