High Court
Facts
cran2526.24-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2526 OF 20241.Rameshwar s/o Fakirrao KaleAge 31 years, Occ. Agri.2.Fakirrao s/o Manikrao KaleAge 60 years, Occ. Agri. 3.Dwarkabai w/o Fakirrao Kale Age 52 years, Occ. HouseholdApplicant Nos. 1 to 3 all R/o. Shivna, Tq. SillodDistrict Aurangabad 4.Rameshwar s/o Tukaram SapkalAge 35 years, Occ. Private Job5.Aasha s/o Rameshwar SapkalAge 35 years, Occ. HouseholdApplicant Nos. 4 and 5 R/o. Jalgaon (Sapkal), Tq. Bhokardan, District Jalna 6.Kachru s/o Dadarao SableAge 56 years, Occ. Agri.R/o. Plot No.24, DhamashreeColony, Mayur Park Harsul,Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad7.Vishnu s/o Dadarao SabaleAge 77 years, Occ. Agri.8.Dattu s/o Dadarao SabaleAge 48 years, Occ. Agri.9.Ganesh s/o Dadarao Sabale Age 48 years, Occ. Agri. 10.Sarangdhar s/o Dadarao SabaleAge 46 years, Occ. Agri.Applicant Nos. 7 to 10 all R/o. Gevrai Payga, Tq. Phulambri cran2526.24-2- District Aurangabad11.Indubai w/o Kakasaheb Fuke Age 60 years, Occ. Household12.Kakasaheb s/o Sandu FukeAge 63 years, Occ. Agri.13.Jitendra s/o Kakasaheb FukeAge 30 years, Occ. Job14.Suresh s/o Uttamrao FukeAge 45 years, Occ. Agri.15.Ankush s/o Uttamrao FukeAge 50 years, Occ. Agri.16.Dilip s/o Apparao FukeAge 62 years, Occ. Agri. 17.Dnyaneshwar s/o Himmatrao PawarAge 49 years, Occ. Agri. 18.Mandabai w/o Dnyaneshwar Pawar Age 45 years, Occ. Household19.Ranjana d/o Dnyaneshwar PawarAge 21 years, Occ. Agri.Applicant Nos. 11 to 19 all R/o. Vazirkheda, Post. Pimpalgaon KolteTq. Bhokardan, District Jalna 20.Dilip s/o Murlidhar KaleAge 48 years, Occ. Agri.21.Murlidhar s/o Rangnath KaleAge 70 years, Occ. Agri.Applicant Nos. 20 and 21 R/o. Shivna, Tq. SillodDistrict Ahmednagar ...Applicants Versus 1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Inspector cran2526.24-3- Wadodbazar Police StationTq. Phulambri, District Aurangabad2.Pooja w/o Rameshwar KaleAge 31 years, Occ. HouseholdR/o. Georai Payaga, Tq. PhulambriDistrict Aurangabad...Respondents …..Mr. R.C. Brahmankar, Advocate for the applicantsMr. G.A. Kulkarni, A.P.P. for the respondent No.1Mr. A.R. Ban h/f Mr. R.V. Gore, Advocate for respondent No.2. ….. CORAM:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATED:18th AUGUST, 2025 O R D E R (PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) :- 1.Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 2.This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) for quashing of theFirst Information Report (for short “F.I.R.”) vide C.R. No. 136 of 2023registered with Wadodbazar police station, Tq. Phulambri DistrictAurangabad, for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 494,323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short“I.P.C.”), the charge sheet No. 193 of 2023 and the consequentialcriminal case bearing R.C.C. No. 54 of 2024 pending before theJudicial Magistrate, First Class, Phulambri, District Aurangabad. 3.The informant averred in the report that she married with cran2526.24-4- applicant No.1 on 6.5.2018. In her marriage, dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-and gold and silver ornaments were given. After marriage, she wastreated well for two years. Thereafter, her parents-in-law i.e. applicantNos. 2 and 3 demanded Rs.20,00,000/- for securing a job for herhusband and asked her to fetch that amount from her parents. Whenshe used to go for festivals to her parents’ house, she used to tellabout the same to her parents. Her parents said that they are poorand therefore, cannot pay that amount. When the informant returnedto her matrimonial home alongwith her father, her parents-in-lawasked her as to whether she brought the amount? At that time, herfather tried to convince applicant Nos. 1 to 3, but as soon as herfather left the house, applicant Nos. 1 to 3 abused her and beat herwith fists and kicks blows. Thereafter, they started to harass her bysaying that she was not able to cook the food properly and was notdoing the house chores properly. This way the applicants weretreating her with cruelty physically as well as mentally. Thereafter,the applicants threatened her that if she fails to fetch the amount ofRs.20,00,000/- they will eliminate her. Then they took the gold andsilver ornaments from her person after beating her, they drove herout of the house. Thereafter, she resided with her parents. Theinformant further averred that on 1.6.2023, she came to know thather husband had performed second marriage, in which all theapplicants participated. The informant thereafter, lodged the report cran2526.24-5- on 8.6.2023 against the applicants. 4.Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that they arefalsely implicated in the crime. There is no such material against theapplicants regarding performance of second marriage of applicantNo.1. When the father of the informant was a witness to the incidentthen there is delay for lodging the report which is not explained. Therole of the applicants is not specified in the report as well as in thestatements of witnesses to show that they were present forperformance of alleged second marriage of applicant No.1. Learnedadvocate for the applicants lastly prayed for allowing the application. 5.Learned A.P.P for the respondent State and learned advocatefor respondent No.2 strongly opposed the application and submittedthat the applicants are involved in a serious crime. The essentialingredients of section 498-A of the I.P.C. i.e. cruelty coupled withdemand are establishing. The applicants participated in theperformance of second marriage of applicant No.1 i.e. the husbandof the informant. 6.Here, it would be relevant to refer the authority in the case ofDisha Kapoor Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in,2025 SCC OnLine SC 1070, in which the Honourable Supreme cran2526.24-6- Court in paragraph No.2 held as under:-"2. The learned Single Judge, before whom the petitionerappeared in person, quashed the proceedings initiatedrelying on Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand which notedwith anguish the rapidly increasing matrimonial litigationsin the country roping in the close relatives of the husbandand even members of the extended family, as in this case,on allegations of harassment. This requires the Courts tobe doubly cautious and extremely careful in dealing withsuch complaints, especially since the ultimate object ofjustice is to find out the truth and not only to punish theguilty but also to protect the innocent. It was alsoemphasised that in the event of the proceedings beingfound to be an abuse of process of Court, then necessarilythe power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. should be invokedto secure the ends of justice."7.We have perused the charge sheet, particularly the report andthe statements of witnesses. The witnesses have stated that ChakuliDnyaneshwar Pawar is the alleged second wife of applicant No.1,who has performed his second marriage with said Chakuli atVajirkheda. To attract the Section 494 of the I.P.C. the requisitesare that there must be living husband or wife and to marry againduring the lifetime of the existing husband or wife, which is void andillegal asper law.8.Mere proving the existence of relationship of the husband and cran2526.24-7- wife is not sufficient. As per the law laid down by the Hon’bleSupreme Court in the case of Laxmi Devi vs. Satya Narayan (1995)5 SCC 545, it is necessary to prove the actual performance of thesaid marriage. From the statements of some of the witnesses, it issought to be established that they were present at the time ofmarriage, however, they did not oppose the marriage. They also didnot immediately communicate to the police that the said secondmarriage being performed and it must be stopped. Who was thepriest to perform that marriage is also not clarified. The allegations inthe F.I.R. are not sufficient to establish the performance of allegedsecond marriage as contemplated by Section 494 of the I.P.C.Considering all these aspects, the essential ingredients of section494 of the I.P.C. are not establishing against the applicants. 9.There are allegations of demand of Rs.20,00,000/- against thehusband and parents-in-law of the informant, but no specific incidentis stated by the informant as to when these applicants demandedthat amount, abused and beat her. The allegations of taking awayornaments and expelling the informant from the house is alsovaguely stated by the informant. Vague and general allegations ofdemand are not sufficient to establish cruelty as contemplated underSection 498-A of the I.P.C. The cruelty coupled with demand ascontemplated by Section 498-A of the I.P.C. is not establishing from
Legal Reasoning
cran2526.24-8- the report as well as the statements of witnesses. On the contrary,all these allegations are vague and general in nature. The specificrole is not establishing against the applicants.10.The essential ingredients of section 323 of the I.P.C. i.e.voluntarily causing injury are not establishing against applicants. Asfar as causing criminal intimidation as per Section 506 of the I.P.C. isconcerned, from the report itself it appears that, there is no materialto show that applicants threatened and caused injury to theinformant’s person, reputation or property with intention to causealarm to her. Thus, the essential ingredients of criminal intimidationas defined under section 503 of the I.P.C. punishable under Section506 of the I.P.C. are not establishing against applicants. 11.As far as offence under Section 506 of the I.P.C. is concerned,in our view, there is no such material to attract Section 504 of theI.P.C. as it is not established that the applicants caused alarm to theinformant that the applicants intentionally insulted her to provokeand disturb the public peace.12.Considering the above reasons, compelling the applicants toface the trial, would amount to an abuse of process of the court. Thecase is made out for exercise of our extraordinary powers under cran2526.24-9- section 482 of the Cr.P.C. We are, therefore, inclined to allow theapplication in the interest of justice to prevent the abuse of process ofthe Court. Hence, the following order:-O R D E RI.The application stands allowed.II.The F.I.R. vide C.R. No. 136 of 2023 registered withWadodbazar police station, Tq. Phulambri DistrictAurangabad, for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 494, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(for short “I.P.C.”), the charge sheet No. 193 of 2023 and theconsequential criminal case bearing R.C.C. No. 54 of 2024pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Phulambri,District Aurangabad, stand quashed and set aside as againstapplicants. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)rlj/