High Court

Legal Reasoning

1criappln No.2793-2024IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2793 OF 20241.Ganesh S/o. Kashinath WarkariAge : 35 Years, Occu. : Conductor,R/o. At Post Nayagaon Dattapur,Tq. Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana.At Present : 3rd Floor, Matoshri Building,Gat No.215, Saraswati Housing Society,Rupeenagar, Talawade, Pune. 2.Kashinath S/o. Dattu WarkariAge : 64 Years, Occu. : Agri.,R/o. At Post Nayagaon Dattapur,Tq. Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana.3.Mathurabai W/o. Kashinath WarkariAge : 60 Years, Occu. : Household,R/o. At Post Nayagaon Dattapur,Tq. Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana.4.Varsha W/o. Santosh SonawaneAge : 40 Years, Occu. : Household,R/o. Ganpur, Antri Deshmukh,Tq. Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana.5.Santosh S/o. Kachru SonawaneAge : 45 Years, Occu. : Agri.,R/o. Ganpur, Antri Deshmukh,Tq. Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana.6.Dnyaneshwari Pandharinath SarodeAge : 37 Years, Occu. : Household,R/o. Shivshankar Colony, Kranti Chowk,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.…. ApplicantsVERSUS 2criappln No.2793-20241.The State of MaharashtraThrough the Police Inspector,Jalna Police Station, Jalna,Tq. & Dist. Jalna.2.Sheetal W/o. Ganesh WarkariAge : 28 Years, Occu. : Household,R/o. Shital Niwas, Ayodhya Nagar,Ambad Road, Tq. & Dist. Jalna. …. Respondents....Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Bhushan S. DhawaleAPP for Respondent No.1-State : Mrs. P.R. BharaswadkarAdvocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Aditya Lokhande h/f Mr. Sambhaji S. Tope.…CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.Dated : 10th March 2025ORDER [PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.] :-1.This is an application for quashing the First InformationReport (for short “the F.I.R.”) and charge-sheetin R.C.C. No.709 of2024, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-8,Jalna, Dist. Jalna, arising out of Crime bearing No.0250 of 2024,registered at Jalna Police Station, Dist. Jalna on 16.04.2024, for theoffences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 read with 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the DowryProhibition Act, 1961. 3criappln No.2793-20242.After hearing both the sides, when this Court expresseddisinclination to grant any relief to applicant No.1/husband, learnedAdvocate for the applicants sought withdrawal of the application tothe extent of this applicant. Therefore, vide order dated 08.08.2024,the present application is dismissed as withdrawn against applicantNo.1. 3.Learned Advocate for the applicants pointed out thereport dated 16.04.2024, in which respondent No.2/informantaverred that she married with applicant No.1 on 16.04.2021.Applicant No.2 is her father-in-law, applicant No.3 is her mother-in-law, application Nos.4 and 6 are her sisters-in-law and applicationNo.5 is husband of applicant No.4. In the said marriage, an amount ofdowry of Rs.1,60,000/-, gold ring and other home appliances weregiven. For about two months, she was treated well. ApplicantNo.1/husband was a conductor in P.M.T., Pune. He used to come tovisit her occasionally. When he used to go back to Pune for the job,the applicants used to abuse her in filthy language. They were sayingthat her behavior was not proper. She was locked inside a house.4.The informant further averred that ApplicantNo.2/father-in-law was keeping an ill eye on her. When she asked 4criappln No.2793-2024about his behavior with her, he said that ‘you are none of my use, youare not required to us’. The applicants were doubting on her characterand telling wrong information to her husband. They created obstaclesin her cohabitation. When her husband used to come from Pune, theapplicants were telling lies to her husband, therefore, her husbandused to beat her. When she was pregnant, the applicants said thatdon’t continue the pregnancy. They were not taking care of herhealth. She was not medically examined. Thereafter, when she wentto Pune for cohabitation, that time also her husband was notbehaving with her properly. On 03.11.2021, he insisted her toterminate the pregnancy and demanded Rs.2 lakhs for securing a job.He slapped her and expelled her from the house. Since then, she isresiding with her parents. She begot a daugther viz. Sawali. Shereceived a letter from Women Redressal Grievance Center, Jalna. Shehad lodged the report against the applicants and her husband. 5.Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that theapplicants are falsely implicated in the crime. False allegations aremade against the applicants, husband and father-in-law of theinformant. Applicant Nos.4 and 6 are married sisters-in-law of theinformant and they are residing with their husband at differentplaces. No specific incident is stated with exact date or period as to 5criappln No.2793-2024when the applicants treated her with cruelty by demanding money forsecuring job to her husband, keeping ill eye on her, beating her, etc. Itis lastly prayed to allow the application.6.Learned APP for the State strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that there is a strong evidence of crueltyagainst the applicants. Their names are mentioned in the F.I.R. Theapplicants treated her with cruelty by demanding money, keeping illeye on her, beating her, etc. and caused physical and mental crueltyand compelled her to live at parents house. It is lastly prayed to rejectthe application. 7.Learned Advocate for respondent No.2/informant alsostrongly opposed the application and submitted that the applicantsare involved in causing harassment to the informant. They havetreated the informant with cruelty by demanding money, keeping illeye on her, beating her, etc. The specific incidents are stated by theinformant in the report. The names of the applicants are stated in thereport. There are statements of witnesses corroborating with theversion of the informant. There is a strong evidence against theapplicants to proceed further with the trial. In such a fact situation,the application deserves to be rejected as there is a reliable evidenceagainst the applicants. He prayed to reject the application. 6criappln No.2793-20248.In the context of this case, it would be relevant to referthe decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Wajid andAnother Vs. State of U.P. and Another, reported in 2023 SCC OnlineSC 951; 2023 INSC 683, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court heldthus :-“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 Courtowes 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 482 ofthe 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….”9.A reference can be made to the judgment in the case ofCBI vs. Aryan Singh, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 379, in whichthe Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under :-“10.As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage ofdischarge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, 7criappln No.2793-2024while exercising the powers under Section 482 ofCr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the minitrial.”10.In case of Kim Wansoo Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 17, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inparas 9 and 11 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.11.We have perused the report and charge-sheet. Therelatives of the informant have stated one and same story, particularlyher brother, that the applicants were treating the informant withcruelty. Applicant No.2/father-in-law was having ill eye on her andthe applicants demanded Rs.2 Lakhs for securing a job to the husbandof the informant. On perusal of report and statements of witnesses, itis crystal clear that no specific incident of alleged cruelty with specificrole of any of the applicant is stated by the informant in her report.Though there are allegations of ill eye on applicant No.2/father-in-law, it is not specifically stated as to when and in what manner, hetreated the informant with cruelty by keeping ill eye on her. No 8criappln No.2793-2024specific incident is stated by the informant as to when this incidenthappened. As far as beating is concerned to the informant, there is noevidence of injury caused to her. In respect of demand of Rs.2 Lakhs,it is stated that on 03.11.2021, the husband of the informantdemanded said amount and insisted to terminate her pregnancy, buthis application is already withdrawn.12.Thus, there is no specific evidence against applicantNos.2 to 6 about the alleged cruelty of doubting her character,demanding Rs.2 Lakhs, beating her for it and keeping ill eye on theinformant. Thus, the essential ingredients of Sections 498-A, 323, 504read with 34 of I.P.C. are not establishing against these applicants.The essential ingredients of Section 498-A of I.P.C. are lacking as heldby the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kahkashan Kausar @Sonam Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, MamidiAnil Kumar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Another,reported in (2024) SCC Online 127 and Abhishek Vs. The State ofMadhya Pradesh, reported in (2023) AIR SC 4209, the prosecutionagainst the applicants needs to be quashed. In such circumstances, ifthe applicants are compelled to face the trial, it would certainly be anabuse of process of Court. We are, therefore, inclined to exercise ourpowers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to 9criappln No.2793-2024quash the report to prevent the abuse of process of Court in theinterest of justice against applicant Nos.2 to 6. The applicationdeserves to be allowed. ORDERI)The application is dismissed as withdrawn as against applicant No.1.II)The application stands allowed to the extent of applicant Nos.2 to 6.III)The First Information Report and charge-sheet inR.C.C. No.709 of 2024, pending before the learnedJudicial Magistrate First Class-8, Jalna, Dist. Jalna,arising out of Crime bearing No.0250 of 2024,registered at Jalna Police Station, Dist. Jalna on16.04.2024, for the offences punishable under Sections498-A, 323, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry ProhibitionAct, 1961 stands quashed and set aside as against applicant Nos.2 to 6. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ] JUDGE[ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGEasd