High Court
Legal Reasoning
1APPLN.2016.2023.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2016 OF 20231.Nilesh Kesharsingh Patil.2.Kesharsingh Shankar Patil.3.Bebubai Kesharsingh Patil.4.Sunita Nilesh Patil.5.Nilesh Ramakant Patil.6.Rupali @ Dipali Dipak Patil.… ApplicantsVersus1.The State of Maharashtra.2.Rohini Nilesh Patil.… Respondents...Mr. Jitendra Vijay Patil, Advocate for Applicants.Mr. G. A. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent No.1 / State.Mr. Vinod Prakash Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.…CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE :13th February, 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 the FIR 2APPLN.2016.2023.odtbearing C.R. No.137 of 2023, dated 2nd May, 2023, registered withDharangaon Police Station, District Jalgaon, for the offence punishableunder Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of theIndian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”) and the proceedings in R.C.C.No.60 of 2023, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial MagistrateFirst Class, Dharangaon. 3The application of applicant No.1 was already withdrawnon 7th July, 2023. Applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the parents-in-law andApplicant Nos.4 and 6 are the sisters-in-law of the informant. ApplicantNo.5 is the husband of applicant No.4.4It is averred in the report that the informant / respondentNo.2 was married with accused No.1 as per the Hindu customs andrituals at Mouje Satkheda, Taluka Dharangaon, District Jalgaon. Aftermarriage, the informant started to reside with her husband and thein-laws. Initially she was treated well. However, later, all theapplicants started to harass her by saying that sufficient dowry was notgiven and other articles were also not given in the marriage, though anamount of Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry was paid alongwith one tola goldchain and two finger rings. The applicants took all her gold ornamentsby convincing her, which were not returned. The husband of theinformant was also instigated by the applicants. Therefore, he was 3APPLN.2016.2023.odtinsulting her frequently. The informant was compelled to do lot of workin the house. The applicants thereafter, demanded Rs.8,00,000/-.They threatened that unless she brings that amount, they would notallow her to live there. However, her father paid Rs.20,000/- for threetimes. Applicants were instigating the husband of the informant toperform second marriage and to pray for divorce. The mother-in-lawonce harassed the informant by directing to pay the amount of repair ofbutton of gas stove. That time, the mother-in-law abused the informant.Thereafter, her husband made phone call to her father and told him totake the informant back. Her husband also demanded Rs.8,00,000/-.Her husband said that unless that amount is paid, he will not allow theinformant to stay with him. After the lock-down, the informant went toher uncle Vinayak Patil at Hanumant Kheda, Chopda in July 2020.That time, the husband of informant and applicant No.3 insulted theaunt of the informant. The informant was not allowed to cohabit withher husband for the demand of Rs.8,00,000/-. In the month of July2020, she has been expelled from the house. Thereafter, she isresiding with her parents. The amount of Rs.8,00,000/- for purchasinga plot for running tuition class was demanded and she was harassedby all the applicants. Therefore, she made application to Women’sProtection Committee in Jalgaon on 3rd December, 2022, expecting thematter would be settled. However, the applicants did not remainpresent there. Her husband gave false statement there. The
Legal Reasoning
4APPLN.2016.2023.odtinformant tried to convince her husband through the Advocate also, buthe did not respond. Therefore, she lodged the report.5The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that falseallegations are made against the applicants. The informant had filed anapplication under the provisions of the Protection of Women fromDomestic Violence Act, 2005 and prayed for maintenance. There arecontradictory allegations made in the notice and the report by theinformant. No such demand of amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was made bythe applicants. Applicant Nos.4 to 6 are not residing in villageSatkheda, Taluka Dharamgaon, District Jalgaon. Allegations in thereport does not constitute any offence, for which the applicants areprosecuted. In such circumstances, forcing the applicants to face thetrial would certainly be an abuse of the process of Court. He lastlyprayed to allow the application. 6The learned APP for the State strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that the applicants are involved in theserious crime. They have frequently demanded Rs.8,00,000/- forpurchasing a plot for running tuition class of the husband of informant.Applicants’ roles are specified in the report. Their names alongwiththeir overt acts are specifically stated in the report. There is strongevidence of the informant and other witnesses about the demand of 5APPLN.2016.2023.odtRs.8,00,000/- against the applicants. He lastly prayed to reject theapplication. 7The learned counsel for the informant / respondent No.2also strongly opposed the application and submitted that the applicantsare involved in serious crime of illegal demand of Rs.8,00,000/- forpurchasing a plot for running tuition class. The names of theapplications are mentioned in the report alongwith their specific roles.Merely because the case under the provisions of the Protection ofWomen From Domestic Violence Act is filled for maintenance etc., thereport and the charge-sheet cannot be quashed. He lastly prayed toreject the application. 8As regards the legal position is concerned, we rely uponthe judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of SumanMishra and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another,reported in, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 295, in which it is held as under:-“15.….9.At this stage, we would like to observesomething important. Whenever an accused comesbefore the court invoking either the inherent powersunder Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminalproceedings quashed essentially on the ground that 6APPLN.2016.2023.odtsuch proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatiousor instituted with the ulterior motive for wreakingvengeance, then in such circumstances the courtowes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a littlemore closely.10.We say so because once the complainantdecides to proceed against the accused with anulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc.then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is verywell drafted with all the necessary pleadings. Thecomplainant would ensure that the averments made inthe FIR/complaint are such that they disclose thenecessary ingredients to constitute the allegedoffence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for thecourt to look into the averments made in theFIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertainingwhether the necessary ingredients to constitute thealleged offence are disclosed or not.9We have perused the report and the charge-sheet and thecase filed by the informant against the applicants bearing PWDVApplication No.91 of 2022 in the Court of learned Judicial MagistrateFirst Class. In the report and the statements of witnesses, theallegations of demand of Rs.8,00,000/- by all the applicants is made.Taking away ornaments of informant is another allegation. Noornament is seized by the investigating officer. In the said case, noallegations of demand of Rs.8,00,000/- are made. The said case is 7APPLN.2016.2023.odtfiled in the year 2022 and the report is lodged on 2nd May, 2023. In thenotice dated 4th October, 2022, it is alleged that the husband of theinformant demanded Rs.2,00,000/-. If all these facts are consideredtogether, then it reveals that the contradictory story of demand ofRs.8,00,000/- is hatched by the informant. No specific incident as towhen the applicants demanded an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- is stated.Applicant Nos.4 to 6 were not residing jointly with the informant andher husband. Applicant Nos.4 and 5 are residents of village Taradi,Taluka Shirpur, District Dhule and applicant No.6 is resident of villageLadli, Taluka Dhargaon, District Jalgaon. The essential ingredientsconstituting cruelty coupled with demand or driving to commit suicideto the informant are not establishing from the report and the charge-sheet. The essential ingredients of Sections 406, 323, 504 and 506 ofthe IPC are not establishing from the charge-sheet. In suchcircumstances and on such contradictory evidence, compellingapplicant Nos.2 to 6 to face the trial would certainly be an abuse of theprocess of the Court. We are therefore, inclined to allow theapplication by exercising our inherent powers under Section 482 of theCr.P.C. in the interest of justice. The application, therefore, deservesto be partly allowed. Hence, the following order:-O R D E RI.The application of applicant No.1 is already dismissed 8APPLN.2016.2023.odtas withdrawn by order dated 7th July, 2023.II.The FIR bearing C.R. No.137 of 2023, dated 2nd May,2023, registered with Dharangaon Police Station,District Jalgaon, for the offence punishable underSections 498-A, 406, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”) and theproceedings in R.C.C. No.60 of 2023, pending in theCourt of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,Dharangaon, stand quashed to the extent of applicantNos.2 to 6. III.The application stands disposed of. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]nga