High Court
Facts
1APPLNS.2490.2022 n 3287.2022.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2490 OF 20221.Sandipaan s/o. Eknath Shinde,Age: 71 Years, Occupation: Nil,Resident of – at post – Amleshwar Nagar, Barshi Road, In front of MIDC Police Station, Latur, District – Latur.At present – Behind Bandhkaam Bhavan, Ayodhya Colony, Ausa Road, Latur, District – Latur. (Father-in-law)2.Bhagyashri w/o. Anil Jambhale,Age: 45 Years, Occupation: Housewife,(Sister-in-law)3.Anil s/o. Namdeo Jambhale,Age: 50 Years, Occupation: Service,(Brother-in-law)The applicant Nos. 2 & 3 are residents of – At post – Behind Bandhkaam Bhavan, Ayodhya Colony, Ausa Road, Latur, District – Latur. … Applicants(Original Accused). Versus1.The State of Maharashtra –Through Officer-in-charge of Police Station-M.I.D.C., Latur, Taluka & District – Latur.2.Pallavi w/o. Ravindra Shinde,Age: 38 Years, Occupation: Service, Resident of – at post – Amleshwar Nagar, Barshi Road, In front of MIDC Police Station, Latur, District – Latur.(Daughter-in-law of the applicant No.1)… Respondents
Legal Reasoning
7APPLNS.2490.2022 n 3287.2022.odtwitnesses against the husband of informant and the applicants. It isstated that for one and half years after 30th April, 2008, and particularlyfrom 2010, the applicants treated the informant with cruelty bydemanding Rs.20,00,000/- for construction of house. An amount ofRs.10,00,000/- paid by her parents, however, they continued theirdemand of remaining amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for construction ofhouse. Except this incident, there is no specific incident that is statedby the informant and the witnesses. To support the payment ofdemand of Rs.10,00,000/-, there is no documentary evidence in thecharge-sheet. The vague and general allegations of demand of moneyare made against the applicants and it is the prosecution’s case thatthe demand was continued for twelve years. From the report, itappears that the informant is having job. She is serving as a teacherat Jay Bhavani High School, Gaurgaon. Her husband was serving asa Lecturer at Dayanand Science College, Latur. It shows that theinformant is educated, however, she had not made any complaint ofdemand of Rs.20,00,000/- against the applicants and her husbandimmediately in the year 2010. Such omnibus and vague allegationsmade against the applicants are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Ifall these aspects are considered together, we are of the view thatcompelling the applicants to face the trial would certainly be an abuseof the process of Court. The essential ingredients of Sections 498-A,323, 504 and 506 of the IPC are not establishing against the 8APPLNS.2490.2022 n 3287.2022.odtapplicants. We are therefore, inclined to allow the application byexercising our inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.Hence, the following order:-O R D E RI.Both the applications are allowed. II.The Chare-Sheet bearing No.262 of 2022, filed in theCourt of learned Second Judicial Magistrate FirstClass, Latur, District Latur on 12th August, 2022,pursuant to an FIR bearing Crime No.370 of 2022,dated 5th July, 2022, registered with the M.I.D.C.Police Station, Latur, District Latur, for the offencespunishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, standsquashed and set aside as against all the applicants. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]nga
Arguments
2APPLNS.2490.2022 n 3287.2022.odtANDCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3287 OF 2022Ankit s/o. Anil Jambhale,Age: 22 Years, Occupation: Education, Resident of – At post – House No.30, Ayodhya Colony, Behind Bandhkaam Bhavan, Ausa Road, Latur, District – Latur.(son of sister in law)… Applicants(Original Accused) Versus1.The State of Maharashtra –Through Officer-in-charge of Police Station-M.I.D.C., Latur, Taluka & District – Latur.2.Pallavi w/o. Ravindra Shinde,Age: 38 Years, Occupation: Service, Resident of – at post – Amleshwar Nagar, Barshi Road, In front of MIDC Police Station, Latur, District – Latur.… Respondents...Mr. Vilas P. Savant, Advocate for Applicants, in both the matters.Mr. G. A. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent No.1 / State, in both the matters.Mr. Tukaram M. Venjane, Advocate for Respondent No.2, in both the matters…CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE :17th March, 2025.O R D E R: (Per Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.).Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 3APPLNS.2490.2022 n 3287.2022.odt2These are applications under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) for quashing theCharge-Sheet bearing No.262 of 2022, filed in the Court of learnedSecond Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur, District Latur on 12thAugust, 2022, pursuant to an FIR bearing Crime No.370 of 2022,dated 5th July, 2022, registered with the M.I.D.C. Police Station, Latur,District Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323,504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.3In Criminal Application No.2490 of 2022, applicant No.1 isthe father-in-law of the informant / respondent No.2. Applicant No.2 isthe sister-in-law of the informant and applicant No.3 is the husband ofapplicant No.2. In Criminal Application No.3287 of 2022, the applicantis the son of sister-in-law of the informant.4The informant averred in the report that her marriage wasperformed with accused No.1 on 30th April, 2008. In the marriage, herparents spent Rs.10,00,000/-, which included ten tolas gold ornamentsand other household essentials. Initially for about two years, theinformant was treated well by the applicants and her husband.Thereafter, all the applicants were instigating the husband of theinformant. Therefore, he was saying that “I do not like you, I do notneed you. I have a relationship with another woman and will marry 4APPLNS.2490.2022 n 3287.2022.odther.” Her husband was teasing her frequently for simple issues. Herhusband used to beat her by kicks and fists blows and keep herstarved. The applicants were also frequently teasing her by usingabusive words and instigating her husband. Therefore, she tried toconvince them, however, they did not pay heed to her. Thus, she wasfrequently treated with cruelty. 5The informant further averred that from 30th April, 2008,she was treated well for about two years, however, from 2010, she wastreated with cruelty by demanding Rs.20,00,000/- for construction ofhouse. Her parents gave Rs.10,00,000/- to them. However, theapplicants continued their demand of Rs.10,00,000/- from 2010 to 30thJune, 2022. They abused and beaten her. They also threatened to killher. The informant was kept on starvation. Therefore, she lodged thereport against the applicants and her husband. 6The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that theapplicants are falsely implicated in the crime. The vague and omnibusallegations are made against the applicants, which are not establishingthe essential ingredients of Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of theIPC. No specific incident is stated as to when the applicants treatedthe informant with cruelty by demanding money. There is no evidenceagainst the applicants to proceed with the trial. He submitted that if the 5APPLNS.2490.2022 n 3287.2022.odtapplicants are directed to face the trial, in such situation, they willcertainly suffer. He lastly prayed to allow the application. 7The learned APP for the State strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that the applicants are involved in theserious crime. Their names are mentioned in the report. They havecommitted anti-social crime. They demanded money to the informant.He lastly prayed to reject the application. 8The learned counsel for the informant / respondent No.2also strongly opposed the application and submitted that the names ofthe applicants are mentioned in the report. The applicants instigatedthe husband of informant. They used offensive and disrespectfullanguage towards the informant. He lastly prayed to reject theapplication. 9Here, it is relevant to refer to the decision of theHonourable Supreme Court in Mohammad Wajid and Another Vs.State of U.P. and Another, reported in, 2023 SCC Online SC 951;2023 INSC 683, whereunder the Honourable Supreme Court heldthus:-“34.……. it will not be just enough for the Court to lookinto the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for thepurpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients 6APPLNS.2490.2022 n 3287.2022.odtto constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. Infrivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a dutyto look into many other attending circumstances emergingfrom the record of the case over and above the avermentsand, if need be, with due care and circumspection try toread in between the lines. The Court while exercising itsjurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 ofthe Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage ofa case but is empowered to take into account the overallcircumstances leading to the initiation/registration of thecase as well as the materials collected in the course ofinvestigation....”10A reference also can be made to the judgment in the caseof CBI Vs. Aryan Singh, reported in, 2023 SCC Online SC 379, inwhich the Honourable Supreme Court held that as under:-“Para 10… As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stageof discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings,while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C.,the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial.”11We have perused the report and the charge-sheet,particularly, the statements of witnesses. 12The statements of witnesses are similar to the report. Oneand same type of allegations are made by the informant and the