High Court · 2025
Legal Reasoning
cria-2686.241 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2686 OF 20241) Gajanan S/o Damodar Malkhede, Age-41 years, Occu:Private Service, R/o-Maldabhadi, Tq-Jamner, Dist-Jalgaon, and at present Residing at: Asaram Kokare, 6 Galli, Akashay Daily Needs, Balaji Nagar, Sindhi Colony, Kunal Medical, Aurangabad, Tq. and Dist-Aurangabad,2) Lilabai Damodar Malkhede, Age-73 years, Occu:Household, R/o-Maldabhadi, Tq-Jamner, Dist-Jalgaon,3) Damodar Bhikaji Malkhede, Age-75 years, Occu:Nil, R/o-Maldabhadi, Tq-Jamner, Dist-Jalgaon,4) Kailash Damodhar Malkhede, Age-43 years, Occu:Artist, R/o-Bungalow No.22, Aashirwad Bungalow, Khatri Park Society, Valvan, Lonavala, Pune-410410,5) Nita Kailas Malkhede, Age-33 years, Occu:Household, R/o-Bungalow No.22, Aashirwad Bungalow, Khatri Park Society, Valvan, Lonavala, Pune-410410,6) Rajendra Govinda Matale, Age-53 years, Occu:Agril., R/o-Betawad, Tq-Jamner, District-Jalgaon
Legal Reasoning
cria-2686.2427) Sangita Rajendra Matale, Age-46 years, Occu:Household, R/o-Betawad, Tq-Jamner, District-Jalgaon,8) Saurabh Rajendra Matale, Age-24 years, Occu:Education, R/o-Bungalow No.22, Aashirwad Bungalow, Khatri Park Society, Valvan, Lonavala, Pune-410410. ...APPLICANTS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector of Bhusawal Bazarpeth Police Station, Bhusawal, Tq-Bhusawal, District-Jalgaon,2) Chanda Gajanan Malkhede, Age-33 years, Occu:Household, R/o-C/o-Pandit Ziparu Kale, R/o-Shraddha Nagar, Near Hanuman Temple, Bhusawal, Tq-Bhusawal, District-Jalgaon,3) Laki Gajanan Malkhede, Age-16 years, Occu:Education, Under Guardian Mother of Respondent No.2, R/o-As Above. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Amol A. Pawar Advocate h/f. Mr. Vijay Y. Patil Advocate for Applicants. Mr. A.M. Phule, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 – State. Mr. Ravindra Wankhede Advocate for Respondent No.2, appointed through Legal Aid. ... cria-2686.243 CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 5th MARCH 2025DATE OF PRONOUNCING ORDER : 8th APRIL 2025 ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] :1.Present Application has been filed, initially for quashing theFirst Information Report (for short “the FIR”) vide Crime No. 209of 2024 registered with Bazarpeth Police Station, Bhusawal,District- Jalgaon on 6th June 2024, for the offence punishableunder Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of theIndian Penal Code, and by way of amendment for quashing theproceedings in R.C.C. No. 256 of 2024, pending before thelearned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Bhusawal,District-Jalgaon. 2.Heard learned Advocate Mr. Pawar holding for learnedAdvocate Mr. Patil for the applicants, learned APP Mr. Phule forrespondent No.1 and learned Advocate Mr. Wankhede forrespondent No.2, appointed through Legal Aid. In order to cutshort, it can be stated that the learned Advocates for respectiveparties have argued in support of their contentions. cria-2686.244 3.The relationship between the parties is not disputed.Applicant No.1 is the husband of respondent No.2. They gotmarried on 14th May 2007. They have a daughter, aged around14 years on the date of the FIR. Applicant No.2 is mother-in-lawand applicant No.3 is father-in-law. Applicant No.4 is brother-in-law and applicant No.5 is wife of applicant No.4. Applicant No.7is the sister-in-law of respondent No.2, applicant No.6 ishusband of applicant No.7 and applicant No.8 is son of applicantNos. 6 and 7.4.The informant contends that she was treated properly forabout 8 to 10 months immediately after the marriage, however,thereafter the husband and parents-in-law used to insult her onsome or the other pretext. The mother-in-law used to quarrelwith her on the count of preparation of food. The brother-in-law,applicant No.4, who is residing at Mumbai, used to come inholidays to the matrimonial home of respondent No.2 and shesubmits that after his arrival, applicant Nos.1, 3 and 4 used toabuse respondent No.2 under the influence of liquor. Herhusband, applicant No.1 used to assault her. Applicant Nos.6 cria-2686.245and 7 used to harass her without any reason, by coming to thematrimonial home of respondent No.2. The parents-in-law usedto tell applicant No.1 that he ought to have married to a girlfrom rich family. After birth of daughter in 2008, all theapplicants started blaming respondent No.2 that she has givenbirth to a daughter when they expected son to be born.Respondent No.2 then says that she was asked to bring anamount of Rs.5,00,000/- for purchase of four wheeler. InOctober 2016, applicant No.1 was in jail as he was involved in anoffence of murder. After he came out of the jail on bail, hestarted blaming respondent No.2, used to assault and abuse her.Without any reason, applicant No.1 left respondent No.2 andrespondent No. 3 i.e. daughter, to the parental home ofrespondent No.2, on 20th January 2017. Taking into account ofthese allegations, it can be certainly said that the allegations arenot specific, in a sense that respondent No.2 has used thewords, ‘on some or the other reasons’ or ‘without any reason’she was harassed. The daughter was born in 2008 and she wasleft at her parents home with daughter, in 2017 i.e. almost afterabout 9 to 10 years.5.The informant has further stated that after she was left in cria-2686.2462017 with her parents, her relatives and brother had requestedin 2019, by going to her matrimonial home to allow respondentNo.2 to cohabit. It is alleged that at that time, applicant No.6said that respondent No.2 will not be allowed to cohabit andwhen applicant No.1 is involved in one murder case, it will notmake any difference if he commits another murder. Thisallegation is also vague. Applicant No.6 resides at Betawad,Taluka-Jamner, District-Jalgaon. Why he was in the matrimonialhome of respondent No.2 in 2019, is a question. If there hasbeen an attempt to resolve the dispute and send respondentNo.2 for cohabitation, then why immediately after she wasallegedly left at her parents home on 20th January 2017, thoseattempts were not made. 6.Respondent No.2 then says that after she was refused tobe taken in the house in 2019, she and her daughter werebrought up by her parents and even her daughter was admittedin the school at Bhusawal. Thereafter in the FIR, she directlygives the date as 11th November 2023, when it is stated thatapplicant No.4 had come to fetch her as well as her daughter.She states that she herself and her daughter went to thematrimonial home as her parents had advised her. Applicant cria-2686.247No.1 was not present and it was told that he has gone for work.Applicant No.1 returned after fifteen days, however, respondentNo.2 then sent back her daughter to her parents home as hereducation shall not be affected. Respondent No.2 then statesthat after some days, applicant No.1 came under the influence ofliquor and abused her and the other accused persons had alsothen abused and assaulted her. She then states that applicantNo.1 has married with another girl and because of the same sheleft the matrimonial home and joined her parents. Thus, it is tobe noted that this incident appears to be narrated only to bringthe FIR within limitation. The last alleged incident was in 2019and the FIR has been lodged on 6th June 2024. If certainallegations are made just to bring the complaint/FIR withinlimitation, then such allegations will have to be ignored. 7.Respondent No.2 then again states that in spite of notbelieving that the husband has performed second marriage andhe resides at Sambhajinagar, she continued to stay with him butagain the husband under the influence of liquor used to assaulther. On 14th February 2024, she was assaulted by the husbandand he left the house but in the hope, respondent No.2continued to stay in the matrimonial home. At that time cria-2686.248applicant Nos. 1 to 5 were not giving her anything to eat, theyused to abuse and assault her and used to say that she shouldbring an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- if she wants to continue tostay there. Respondent No.2 then states that on one day shewas assaulted by applicant Nos.4 and 5 and then they left thehouse. Even applicant Nos.2 and 3 also left the house and whenthe grocery in the house got exhausted, she went to stay withthe parents. All these allegations appear to be exaggerated i.e.built up story. Without informing the parents as to in whichsituation she lives, it is impossible that she would have continuedto suffer. She has not then stated where the daughter was allalong. 8.The statements of witnesses are on the same line andsurprisingly none of them had ever tried to meet the applicantsand tried to settle the dispute with the intervention of somerespectable persons, nor even advised the informant to knockthe doors of the Court of law. The investigating officer has notcollected any evidence regarding the second marriage allegedlyperformed by applicant No.1. Under these circumstances, itwould be an abuse of process of law if the applicants are allowedto face the trial. Hence, we pass following order:- cria-2686.249 O R D E R(I)The Application stands allowed.(II) The proceedings in R.C.C. No. 256 of 2024,pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate FirstClass, Court No.3, Bhusawal, District-Jalgaon,arising out of the First Information Report videCrime No. 209 of 2024, registered with BazarpethPolice Station, Bhusawal, District- Jalgaon on 6thJune 2024, for the offence punishable underSections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section34 of the Indian Penal Code, stands quashed andset aside as against applicant Nos. 1 to 8 i.e. -1) Gajanan S/o Damodar Malkhede, 2) LilabaiDamodar Malkhede, 3) Damodar Bhikaji Malkhede,4) Kailash Damodhar Malkhede, 5) Nita KailasMalkhede, 6) Rajendra Govinda Matale, 7) SangitaRajendra Matale and 8) Saurabh Rajendra Matale. [SANJAY A. DESHMUKH] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGEasb/APR25