High Court

Legal Reasoning

cran2350.23-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2350 OF 20231.Ashok s/o Kailasrao Deshmukh,Age 67 years, Occ. Retired, R/o. Near Vitthal Temple, Krushna Niwas,Rangari Pura, Karanja Lad,Karanja, Washim. (father in law of informant) 2.Nalutai w/o Ashokrao DeshmukhAge 58 years, Occ. Household R/o. Near Vitthal Temple, Krushna Niwas, Rangari PuraKaranja Lad, Karanja, Washim (mother in law of informant) 3. Nikhil s/o Ashokrao DeshmukhAge 30 years, Occ. Private JobR/o. Near Vitthal temple, Krushna Niwas, Rangari PuraKaranja Lad, Karanja, Washim (brother in law of informant)4.Amol s/o Ashokrao DeshmukhAge 36 years, Occ. Private JobR/o. Near Vitthal Temple, Krushna Niwas, Rangara Pura Karanja Lad, Karanja, Washim (husband of informant)(application is withdrawn videorder dated 31.7.2023) ...Applicants Versus 1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Shivaji Nagar Police StationTq. and district Nanded 2.Akansha w/o Amol Deshmukh Age 32 years, Occ. Private JobR/o. Fule Nagar, Nanded, Tq. And District Nanded ...Respondents cran2350.23-2- …..Mr. Angad Kanade h/f Mr. P.S.Dikle, advocate for the applicantsMr. A.R. Kale, A.P.P. for the respondent No.1Mr. R.P. Bhumkar, advocate for respondent No.2. ….. CORAM:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATED:23rd JUNE, 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 “the Cr.P.C.”) for quashing theFirst Information Report (for short “F.I.R.) No. 136 of 2023, registeredwith Shivaji Nagar police station, Nanded, District Nanded for theoffences punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the I.P.C.”) and theconsequential criminal proceeding bearing R.C.C. No.714 of 2023pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nanded.3.The informant averred in the report that applicant No.1 isher father-in-law, applicant No.2 is mother-in-law, applicant No.3 isbrother-in-law of the informant. The application to the extent ofapplicant No.4-husband came to be disposed of as withdrawn videorder dated 31.07.2023. cran2350.23-3- 4.The informant further averred that, she married with co-accused Amol Deshmukh on 29.07.2020. Initially, for about 4 to 5months, she was treated well by the applicants and her husband.Thereafter, the applicants started abusing and beating her onaccount of her inability to cook the food properly. The applicantswere used to say that her parents have not given them due respect inthe marriage. Although the informant was taking tuition in Pune, shewas forcibly taken to Karanja. After some months of the marriage, theapplicants started to harass the informant for bringing Two Tolasgold, washing machine, sofa, fridge and T.V. from her parents.Thereafter, her father gave two tola gold, fridge and other householdarticles.5.The informant further averred that she was driven out of thehouse asking her to bring amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and she wasthreatened that if she returns without money, she would be killed. Itis also averred that the applicants had sold her Stridhan jewelleryweighing 25 Tola gold and 5 Tola silver. Thereafter, she made anapplication for compromise with the Superintendent of Police,Nanded on 26/12/2022 but in the meeting arranged for compromise,the applicants denied to take the informant to the matrimonial home.Therefore, the informant lodged the report. cran2350.23-4- 6.Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that thoughthe names of the applicants are mentioned in the F.I.R. but there areno specific allegations against them and whatever the allegations aremade, they are vague and baseless, that too without quoting thespecific role of each of the applicants. Further, the date and time ofalleged demand of Rs.5,00,000/- is also not specifically mentioned.The report is not lodged immediately of the alleged incident ofabusing and beating and thus there is a delay in lodging the report.From the charge sheet, it appears that all the witnesses whosestatements are recorded, are from the parental side of the informant.The said statements of the witnesses cannot prove that theharassment and cruelty has been caused to the informant. All theseapplicants are close relatives of the husband of the informant andonly in order to implicate the entire family and the relatives, the reporthas been lodged falsely. He further submits that the applicants havebeen implicated in the crime without any basis. Therefore, he prayedto quash the report as well as the consequential proceedings. 7.Learned A.P.P. for respondent No.1 State and learnedadvocate for respondent No.2 strongly opposed the application bysubmitting that the applicants have treated the informant with cruelty,physically as well as mentally. There was a consistent demand of cran2350.23-5- Rs.5,00,000/- from the applicants and on account of non fulfillment ofthe said demand, the applicants have treated the informant withcruelty. The applicants and other accused persons have causedharassment to the informant mentally as well as physically. Thenames of the applicants are specifically mentioned in the report. Thespecific roles by mentioning their names are attributed to each of theapplicants. They cannot be exonerated from the criminal liabilityunder Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of the I.P.C. It is lastlyprayed to reject the application. 8.It would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’bleSupreme court in the case of Kim Wansoo Vs. State of UttarPradesh & Ors., reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 17 , in which theHon’ble Supreme Court, in paras 9 and 11 of the judgment, has heldas under :“9.In State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, this Courtagain held that where an FIR did not disclose the commissionof an offence without anything being added or subtracted fromthe recitals thereof, the said FIR could be quashed.11.In the contextual situation, it is also relevant to refer tothe decision of this Court in Mohammad Wajid and Anotherv. State of U.P. and Anr., whereunder this Court, in so far asit is relevant, held thus :-“34…….. it will not be just enough for the Court tolook into the averments made in the FIR/complaint cran2350.23-6- alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether thenecessary ingredients to constitute the allegedoffence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatiousproceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into manyother attending circumstances emerging from recordof the case over and above the averments and, ifneed be, with due care and circumspection try toread in between the lines. The Court while exercisingits jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC orArticle 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itselfonly to the stage of a case but is empowered to takeinto account the overall circumstances leading to theinitiation/registration of the case as well as materialscollected in the course of investigation…..”9.We have perused the charge sheet, particularly the report andthe statements of witnesses. It appears that, no specific incident ofcruelty is stated by the informant against these applicants. Theallegations made are vague and general in nature. There is nomedical evidence of injuries caused to the informant to establishessential ingredients of Section 323 of the I.P.C. against applicantNo. 1 to 3. If all these aspects are considered together, the essentialingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323,504, 506 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. are not establishing against theapplicants. Thus, on such vague and general allegations, compellingthe applicants to face the trial, would be an abuse of process of thecourt. The case is made out for exercise of powers under section cran2350.23-7- 482 of the Cr.P.C. We are therefore, inclined to allow the application,in the interest of justice to prevent the abuse of process of the Court.Hence, the following order:- O R D E R I.The application stands partly allowed. II.The F.I.R. No. 136 of 2023, registered with Shivaji Nagarpolice station, Nanded, District Nanded for the offencespunishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of theI.P.C. and the consequential criminal proceeding bearingR.C.C. No.714 of 2023 pending before the Judicial MagistrateFirst Class, Nanded, are quashed and set aside to the extentof applicant Nos. 1 to 3 herein. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)rlj/