High Court
Legal Reasoning
cran2629.22-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2629 OF 20221.Sudhir Dharmraj MaliAge 45 years,Occ. ServiceR/o. Pohare, Tq. ChalisgaonDistrict Jalgaon (husband) (withdrawn) 2.Dharmraj Walmik Mali,Age 73 years, Occ. AgricultureR/o. Pohare, Tq. ChalisgaonDistrict Jalgaon(father in law) 3.Mirabai Dharmraj MaliAge 68 years, Occ. HouseholdR/o. Pohare, Tq. ChalisgaonDistrict Jalgaon(Mother in law)4.Avinash Dharmraj Mali,Age 43 yer, Occ. AgricultureR/o. Pohare, Tq. ChalisgaonDistrict Jalgaon (brother in law) 5.Suverna Avinash MaliAge 33 yer, Occ. AgricultureR/o. Pohare, Tq. ChalisgaonDistrict Jalgaon (wife of applicant No.4) 6.Prabhavati @ Bharti Ganesh MaliAge 47 years, Occ. HouseholdR/o. Room No.11, Mhada ColonyLIG Navare Nagar, Royal Park,Ambarnath Mumbai (sister in law) ...Applicants Versus 1.The State of Maharashtra
Legal Reasoning
cran2629.22-2- Through its Bhadgaon Police Station, Tq. Bhadgaon,District Jalgaon. 2.Jayashri Sudhir Mali,Age 30 years, Occ. Household R/o. C/o. Ratilal Mahan Mali,Pimparkhed, Tq. BhadgaonDistrict Jalgaon ...Respondents …..Mr. H.P. Randhir, Advocate for the applicantsMr. A.D. Wange, A.P.P. for the respondent No.1Mr. Vinod P. Patil, advocate for respondent No.2. ….. CORAM:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATED:25th 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 “the F.I.R.”) No. 105 of 2022 dated22.5.2022 registered with Bhadgaon Police station, Tq. Bhadgaon,District Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “theI.P.C.”), the charge sheet No. 78 of 2022 and the consequentialcriminal case bearing R.C.C. No. 74 of 2022, pending before theJudicial Magistrate First Class, Bhadgaon, District Jalgaon. cran2629.22-3- 3.After hearing for some time, when this court expresseddisinclination to grant relief to applicant No.1, learned advocate forthe applicants, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw theapplication of applicant No.1. Leave granted. The application ofapplicant No.1-husband, stands dismissed as withdrawn. 4.The informant averred in the report that applicant Nos. 2and 3 are her parents in law, applicant No.4 is brother in law,applicant No.5 is wife of applicant No.4 and applicant No.6 is hersister in law. 5.The informant further averred in the report that she marriedwith the son of applicant Nos. 2 and 3 on 26.5.2010. Her parentsincurred huge amount for the said marriage. After marriage, she wentfor cohabitation with her husband at Andheri, Mumbai. She wastreated well for one year. She begot a daughter named Sanskruti. Allthe applicants and her husband started to harass her by saying thatthey were expecting a baby boy, however, she begot a baby girl.Thereafter, they started to demand Rs.5,00,000/- for purchase of ablock in the complex at Karjat. She was trying to convince theapplicants and her husband that her parents are not economicallysound to pay that much amount. She was frequently beaten andharassed by the applicants and her husband. cran2629.22-4- 6.The informant further averred that in the month of June,2012, she was driven out from the house for non fulfillment of thesaid demand. She stayed with her parents till October, 2013. Theinformant further averred that she made an application to theWomen’s Grievance Cell, Jalgaon. Thereafter, she went forcohabitation with her husband. She begot a baby girl Harshavardhinion 5.5.2014. Thereafter, the applicants and her husband againstarted to harass her. Her parents were convincing her. She wasexpecting that the situation will improve. However, the applicants andher husband in the month of March, 2019 beat and drove her out ofthe house. Again her parents and brother tried to convince them butthey were insisting for the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to purchase ablock. The informant again made an application to the Women'sGrievance Cell, Jalgaon. The applicants and her husband did notremain present for the compromise and therefore, the informantlodged the report on 22.05.2022. 7.Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that generaland baseless allegations are made against these applicants.Although the names of the applicants are mentioned in the F.I.R., theallegations against them are made without quoting their specific role.Further, the date and time of alleged demand of Rs.5,00,000/- for cran2629.22-5- purchase of a block is also not specifically mentioned. The report isnot lodged immediately of the alleged incident of abusing and beatingand thus there is a delay in lodging the report. From the chargesheet, it appears that all the witnesses whose statements arerecorded, are from the parental side of the informant. The saidstatements of the witnesses cannot prove that the harassment andcruelty has been caused to the informant. All these applicants areclose relatives of the husband of the informant and only in order toimplicate the entire family and the relatives, the report has beenlodged falsely. He further submits that the applicants have beenimplicated in the crime without any basis. Therefore, he prayed toquash the report as well as the consequential proceedings. 8.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 ofamount of Rs.5,00,000/- for purchase of a block and on account ofnon fulfillment of the said demand, the applicants have treated theinformant with cruelty. The applicants and other accused personshave caused harassment to the informant mentally as well asphysically. The names of the applicants are specifically mentionedin the report. The specific roles are attributed to each of the cran2629.22-6- applicants by mentioning their names. They cannot be exoneratedfrom the criminal liability. 9.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/complaintalone 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 itself cran2629.22-7- only 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…..”10.We have perused the charge sheet, particularly the report andthe statements of witnesses. The witnesses have stated similar factsas stated by the informant in her report. The admitted fact is thatR.C.C. No. 114 of 2016 filed under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. wasdecided in favour of the applicants and her husband and they areacquitted therein. In that case, the allegations for not paying theremaining amount of dowry for Rs.1,00,000/- and for which theinformant was treated with cruelty were made. In the present case,there are vague and general allegations against these applicants andno specific incident is stated either in the report or the statement ofwitnesses at a particular point of time, the applicants harassed theinformant. She was residing with her husband. Considering all theseaspects, it does not establish essential ingredients of cruelty asdefined under Section 498-A, 323, 504 r.w. 34 of the I.P.C.Therefore, on such vague and general allegations, compelling theapplicants to face the trial, would be an abuse of process of thecourt. The case is made out for exercise of powers under section482 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. cran2629.22-8- Hence, the following order:-O R D E R I.The application stands partly allowed. II.The F.I.R. No. 105 of 2022 dated 22.5.2022 registered withBhadgaon Police station, Tq. Bhadgaon, District Jalgaon forthe offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506r.w. 34 of the I.P.C., the charge sheet No. 78 of 2022 and theconsequential criminal case bearing R.C.C. No. 74 of 2022pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhadgaon,District Jalgaon, are quashed and set aside to the extent ofapplicant Nos. 2 to 6 herein. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)rlj/