High Court

Legal Reasoning

1criappln No.2133-2022IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2133 OF 20221.Santosh S/o. Vaijinath Borate,Age : 41 Years, Occu. : Majuri, R/o. Ganesh Nagar, Nimblak,Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar. 2.Sunil S/o. Vaijinath Borate,Age : 37 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o. Near 238 Battalion, Camp (GC),Bhopal Bangrasiya Green, Madhyapradesh. 3.Chandrakala W/o. Vaijinath Borate,Age : 62 Years, Occu. : Housework, R/o. Near 238 Battalion, Camp (GC),Bhopal Bangrasiya Green, Madhyapradesh. …. ApplicantsVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough The Police Inspector,Ghansawangi Police Station,Tq. Jalna, Dist. Jalna. 2.Sushma W/o. Santosh Borate,Age : 32 Years, Occu. : Housework,R/o. Back Side Tahsil Office, Ghansawangi, Tq. Jalna,Dist. Jalna. …. Respondents....Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Ajit B. ChormalAPP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. V.K. Kotecha.… 2criappln No.2133-2022CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.Dated : 18th July 2025ORDER [PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.] :-1.Heard learned Advocate for the applicants as well aslearned APP for the State.2.This is an application for quashing the First InformationReport (hereinafter referred to as “the F.I.R.”) and charge-sheet,under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”), pending before the learnedJudicial Magistrate First Class, Ghansawangi, Tq. & Dist. Jalna,arising out of Crime bearing No.0161 of 2022, registered withGhansawangi Police Station, Dist. Jalna, dated 27.05.2022, for theoffences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 504 read withSection 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as“the I.P.C.”).3.Learned Advocate for the applicants pointed out thereport dated 27.05.2022, in which respondent No.2/informantaverred that applicant No.1 is her husband, applicant No.2 is herbrother-in-law and applicant No.3 is her mother-in-law. 3criappln No.2133-20224.The informant further averred in her report that shemarried to applicant No.1 on 01.05.2007. After marriage, she wastreated well for ten years. She begot a daughter viz. Vaishnavi, aged14 years and a son viz. Kartik, aged 12 Years. From 05.05.2017 to01.01.2022, the applicants treated her with cruelty by doubting hercharacter. She was frequently teased her for trifling reasons. She wasalso frequently harassed for the dowry by the applicants. Theapplicants demanded Rs.2 Lakhs to her for the construction of house.She used to report that cruelty to her parents when she visited herparental house. Her relatives tried to convince the applicants,however, they continued her harassment. She was driven out of thehouse by her husband. Since then, she is residing with her parents.Therefore, she lodged the report.5.Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that theapplicants are falsely implicated in the crime. General and vagueallegations are made against these applicants. Although the specificincidents of cruelty are stated by the informant in the report and bythe witnesses in their statements, the fact of cruelty is not establishedfrom the entire charge-sheet against the applicants. False allegationsof cruelty are made against the applicants. The essential ingredientsof offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 504 of the 4criappln No.2133-2022I.P.C. are not established against the applicants. If they are compelledto face the trial, it would certainly be an abuse of the process of theCourt. It is lastly prayed to allow the application.6.Learned APP for the State strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that there is strong evidence of crueltyagainst the applicants. Their names are mentioned in the F.I.R. Theapplicants treated the informant with cruelty by demanding Rs.2Lakhs for the construction of house and caused her physical andmental cruelty. They compelled her to reside at her parents house. Itis lastly prayed to reject the application.7.In the context of this case, it would be relevant to referthe following authorities :i) Mohammad Wajid and Another Vs. State of U.P. andAnother, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 951; 2023 INSC 683,wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the law asfollows :-“34….. it will not be just enough for the Court to lookinto the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone forthe purpose of ascertaining whether the necessaryingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosedor not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court 5criappln No.2133-2022owes 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 482of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need notrestrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empoweredto take into account the overall circumstances leading tothe initiation/registration of the case as well as thematerials collected in the course of investigation….”ii)CBI Vs. Aryan Singh, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC379, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows :-“10.As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage ofdischarge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings,while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial.”iii)Kim Wansoo Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reportedin 2025 SCC Online SC 17, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inpara.9 of the judgment, has held as under :“9.In State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, thisCourt again held that where an FIR did not disclose thecommission of an offence without anything being addedor subtracted from the recitals thereof, the said FIR couldbe quashed. 6criappln No.2133-20228.We have perused the charge-sheet, particularly the reportand statements of witnesses. The witnesses have stated similar factsas stated by the informant in the report. There are allegations ofdemanding of Rs.2 lakhs and doubting the character of the informant.However, no specific incident is stated by the informant and witnessesas to when the applicants demanded that amount and doubting thecharacter of the informant. General and vague allegations are madeagainst the applicants, which are not sustainable. The essentialingredients of Sections 498-A, 323 and 504 of the I.P.C. to constitutethe cruelty, etc. are not established from the charge-sheet against theapplicants.9.Considering all the aspects, above reasons and law laiddown in the authorities cited supra, if the applicants are compelled toface the trial, it would certainly be an abuse of the process of theCourt. We are, therefore, inclined to exercise our powers underSection 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the report and charge-sheet in theinterest of justice to prevent the abuse of the process of the Courtagainst the applicants. The application deserves to be partly allowed.Hence, the following order. 7criappln No.2133-2022ORDERI)The application is allowed.II)The First Information Report and charge-sheet, pendingbefore the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,Ghansawangi, Tq. & Dist. Jalna, arising out of Crimebearing No.0161 of 2022, registered with GhansawangiPolice Station, Dist. Jalna, dated 27.05.2022, for theoffences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 504read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860stands quashed against the applicants. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ] JUDGE[ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGEasd