High Court
Legal Reasoning
1criappln No.2609-2023IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2609 OF 20231.Dattatray Shantaram Patil,Age : 39 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o. Vaipur, Tq. Shindkheda, Dist. Dhule.2.Shantaram Hasrat Patil,Age : 73 Years, Occu. : Agriculture, R/o. Vaipur, Tq. Shindkheda, Dist. Dhule.3.Ratnamala Anil Patil,Age : 43 Years, Occu. : Housewife, R/o. Girad, Tq. Bhadgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.4.Anil Baliram Patil,Age : 59 Years, Occu. : Retired, R/o. Girad, Tq. Bhadgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.5.Vijaya Narendra Patil,Age : 46 Years, Occu. : Housewife, R/o. Ward No.03, Plot No.15,Khetiya, Tq. Khetiya Pansemal, Dist. Badwani (MP).6.Narendra Gopichand Patil,Age : 57 Years, Occu. : Teacher, R/o. Ward No.03, Plot No.15,Khetiya, Tq. Khetiya Pansemal, Dist. Badwani (MP).7.Pratibha Prashant Patil,Age : 44 Years, Occu. : Housewife, R/o. 612, Gandhikutir 60 Feet Road, Udhna, Surat (Gujarat).
Legal Reasoning
2criappln No.2609-20238.Prashant Prabhakar Patil,Age : 47 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o. 612, Gandhikutir 60 Feet Road, Udhna, Surat (Gujarat).9.Jyoti Deepak Patil,Age : 42 Years, Occu. : Housewife, R/o. Plot No.63, Shivshakti Nagar, Dattawadi, Nagpur. 10.Deepak Sahebrao Patil,Age : 47 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o. Plot No.63, Shivshakti Nagar, Dattawadi, Nagpur. 11.Suvarna Chirag Patil,Age : 36 Years, Occu. : Housewife, R/o. Sanskardham Society, Gandevi, Tq. Gandevi, Dist. Navsari, Gujarat.12.Chirag Bhaidas Patil,Age : 37 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o. Sanskardham Society, Gandevi, Tq. Gandevi, Dist. Navsari, Gujarat.…. ApplicantsVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Officer In Charge,Shirpur Police Station, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.2.Gayatri Dattatray Patil,C/o. Sarang Purushottam Patil,Age : 33 Years, Occu. : Housewife,R/o. Ganesh Colony, Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. …. Respondents....Advocate for Applicants : Mr. N.N. Desale h/f Mr. L.S. MahajanAPP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. A.R. KaleAdvocate for Respondent No.2 : Ms. Rashmi Kulkarni.… 3criappln No.2609-2023CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.Dated : 22nd April 2025ORDER [PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.] :-1.Heard learned Advocate for both the sides as well aslearned APP for the State.2.This is an application for quashing of the FirstInformation Report (for short “the F.I.R.”) and charge-sheet in R.C.C.No.152 of 2023, under Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”), pending before the learnedJudicial Magistrate First Class, Shirpur, Dist. Dhule, arising out ofCrime bearing No.0246 of 2023, registered at Shirpur City PoliceStation, Dist. Dhule, dated 12.06.2023, for the offences punishableunder Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of theIndian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the I.P.C.”)3.As per order dated 22.08.2023, learned Advocate for theapplicants withdrew the application to the extent of applicantNo.1/husband. Accordingly, the application is disposed off aswithdrawn against applicant No.1. 4criappln No.2609-20234.After hearing both the sides, when this Court expresseddisinclination to grant any relief to applicant No.2/father-in-law,learned Advocate for the applicants sought withdrawal of theapplication to the extent of applicant No.2. Therefore, this applicationis dismissed as withdrawn against applicant No.2.5.Learned Advocate for the applicants pointed out thereport dated 12.06.2023, in which respondent No.2/informantaverred that applicant No.3 is her sister-in-law, applicant No.4 is thehusband of applicant No.3, applicant No.5 is her another sister-in-law,applicant No.6 is the husband of applicant No.5, applicant No.7 is heranother sister-in-law, applicant No.8 is the husband of applicant No.7,applicant No.9 is her another sister-in-law, applicant No.10 is thehusband of applicant No.9, applicant No.11 is her another sister-in-law and applicant No.12 is the husband of applicant No.11.6.The informant further averred in her report that shemarried with Dattatray Shantaram Patil on 11.06.2014 at Shirpur,Dist. Dhule. They have begotten a son viz. Om. In her marriage, sevenTolas gold ornaments were given to her. Four Tolas gold in the formof chain and two gold rings were given to her husband in thatmarriage. After marriage, she went for cohabitation with her 5criappln No.2609-2023husband. She was treated well for about two years. Thereafter, theapplicants/sisters-in-law used to come to her house. They instigatedher husband. Therefore, her husband was frequently harassing her.Thereafter, she went to Pune to reside with her husband. Herhusband compelled her to stay at Vaipur instead of Pune. He was nottopping up her mobile phone balance. He was enraging if her parentsmade phone calls to her. Sometimes, he was taunting and beatingher. 7.The informant further averred in her report that whenher mother suffered by cancer, she was not allowed to visit her. Herhusband also did not visit her mother. Her husband was willing tobook a flat at Pune. For that, he demanded Rs.30 Lakhs to her.Because of poor financial position and huge expenses of treatment ofher mother, she could not comply with that demand. Therefore, heused to beat her. He forcefully took away her ornaments given in hermarriage. He threatened that if she told the fact of ornaments weretaken, he will give divorce to her. Under that fear, she did not tell thatfact to her parents.8.The informant further averred that, on 14.04.2019, aritual (Naral Vidhi) of her sister was scheduled. For that function, her 6criappln No.2609-2023husband being an elder son-in-law was requested to be present. Butneither he nor any of his relatives came there. They directly came forthe Haldi ceremony one day before the marriage like strangers andimmediately went back at Vaipur. 9.The informant further averred in her report that, on25.12.2019, her father went to Pune for three to four days to meether and her son OM. That time, her husband did not talk properlywith her father. On 18.03.2020, her father died in a vehicularaccident. After attending the rituals of funeral, she came back toVaipur. That time her husband beat her. On 04.06.2020, he made aphone call to her paternal aunt viz. Vijayabai Patil and told her thathe is going to foreign country for job, he is not willing to cohabit withthe informant and he wants a divorce. Immediately, she tried tocontact him, but he had blocked her mobile number to avoid contactwith her. Therefore, she contacted Anil Patil, relative of her husband.Anil Patil told her that “don’t wait for phone call of Dattatray, directlygo to the house”. She immediately went to her husband’s house alongwith her brother Sarang. That time, her husband took quarrel withher and her brother. She stayed with her husband for five days atVaipur. During that period, he did not talk with her and left the houseon 16.06.2020 and went to Pune. While she was staying in Vaipur for 7criappln No.2609-2023two months, her father-in-law used to come under the influence ofliquor and used to throw meal plate served to him, therefore, she feltinsecure. 10.The informant further averred that, on 31.08.2020,during the lockdown, her brother Sarang took her from Vaipur toPune to her husband. But, when her husband saw both of them, hepretended to proceed to Vaipur. Thereafter, he left the house withoutintimating her by switching off his mobile handset. She took search ofher husband at Pune with other relatives, but he could not be tracedout. After staying there for two months in the lockdown period, shecould trace out her husband at his work place in Force MotorsCompany. She went there. Suddenly her husband ran away andswitched off his mobile handset. She was facing financial difficultiesto meet the daily needs. Therefore, her brother took her to theparental home from Pune. On 18.11.2020, a meeting of relatives wasconducted in which all the applicants, her husband and father-in-lawwere present. They all demanded divorce from her. She refused togive divorce, hence her husband did not allow that meeting tosucceed.11.The informant further averred that, on 07.03.2021,second meeting was arranged at Vaipur. All the applicants, her 8criappln No.2609-2023husband and father-in-law were present in that meeting. Her husbandagreed to take her back for cohabitation. On 11.03.2021, she went toPune for cohabitation. Thereafter, her husband deliberately scatteredthe articles throughout the house. He even opened the pipe of gascylinder. Thereafter, he said that he will not work at Pune and willwork at Vaipur and will permanently stay there. She said that “herson will not get proper education at village place, he will not get a jobin future, therefore, we will stay at Pune and we will adjust our familyexpenses accordingly”. However, he deliberately left Pune. On28.04.2021, she had to go to Vaipur because of the illness of herfather-in-law due to Covid-19. 12.The informant further averred in her report that whenshe was residing with her husband at Vaipur, all the applicants, herfather-in-law were saying that, we are getting a girl who has a job andearns money. That time, all the applicants and her father-in-law andhusband were present. They said that she has to stay in the house likea maid. They were taunting her frequently and instigated herhusband. The applicants, her husband and father-in-law defamed herby spreading a false news in the Vaipur that Rs.21 Lakhs were givento her. 9criappln No.2609-202313.The informant further averred in her report that, on16.07.2021, the applicants and her husband as well as father-in-lawcalled her relatives. All her relatives tried to convince her husband,but they did not pay heed to her. On the say of the applicants andfather-in-law, they expelled her by demanding an amount of Rs.30Lakhs for payment of installment of the house at Pune and threatenedto not allow her to cohabit. She filed an application on 27.12.2022 tothe Women Grievance Redressal Cell, Dhule. For five dates,compromise was tried, but the applicants, her husband and father-in-law refused to allow to cohabit her. They were demanding Rs.30Lakhs. They took away her ornaments and expelled her from thehouse. Therefore, she lodged the report against the applicants,husband and father-in-law.14.Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that theapplicants are falsely implicated in the crime. General and vagueallegations are made against the applicants. Though the specificincidents of cruelty are stated by the informant in the report and bythe witnesses in their statements, the fact of cruelty is not establishingfrom the entire charge-sheet against the applicants. There is no injurycertificate for proving the alleged beating. The false allegation ofdemand of Rs.30 Lakhs is made against the applicants. The essential 10criappln No.2609-2023ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504,506 of I.P.C. are not establishing against the applicants. If theapplicants are compelled to face the trial, it would certainly be anabuse of process of Court. It is lastly prayed to allow the application.15.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 the informant with cruelty by demanding money,abusing her, insulting her, beating her, etc. and caused physical andmental cruelty and compelled her to reside at her parents house. Thespecific incidents of cruelty are stated by the informant in the F.I.R. Itis lastly prayed to reject the application.16.Learned Advocate for respondent No.2/informant alsostrongly opposed the application and submitted that the applicantsare involved in the crime of treating the informant with cruelty bydemanding money, abusing her and insulting her. The specificincidents are stated by the informant in the report. The names of theapplicants are mentioned in the F.I.R. There are statements ofwitnesses corroborating with the version of the informant. There is astrong evidence against the applicants to proceed further with the 11criappln No.2609-2023trial. Therefore, the application deserves to be rejected as there is areliable evidence against the applicants to establish the requisites ofoffences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. Heprayed to reject the application.17.In the context of this case, it would be relevant to referthe following authorities :i) Mohammad Wajid and Another Vs. State of U.P. andAnother, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 951; 2023 INSC 683,wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the law asfollows :-“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 482of the 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….” 12criappln No.2609-2023ii)CBI vs. Aryan Singh, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC379, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows :-“10.As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage ofdischarge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings,while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial.”iii)Kim Wansoo Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reportedin 2025 SCC Online SC 17, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inpara.9 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.18.We have perused the charge-sheet, particularly the reportand statements of witnesses. On perusal of report and statements ofwitnesses, it appears that there are serious allegation of harassmentagainst the husband and father-in-law of the informant. However,they have withdrawn their application.19.As far as applicant Nos.3 to 12 are concerned, no specificincident of harassment is stated by the informant that they demanded 13criappln No.2609-2023Rs.30 Lakhs for paying the installment of the flat at Pune andharassed her for that amount. General and vague allegations aremade against the applicants. Applicant Nos.3 and 4 reside at Girad,Tq. Bhadgaon, Dist. Jalgaon, applicant Nos.5 and 6 reside at Khetiya,Dist. Badwani (MP), applicant Nos.7 and 8 reside at Udhna, Surat(Gujarat), applicant Nos.9 and 10 reside at Nagpur and applicantNos.11 and 12 reside at Gandevi, Navsari (Gujarat). No particulardate is stated by the informant in the F.I.R as to when they came toharass the informant.20.Considering all the aspects and law laid down in theauthorities cited supra, if the applicants are compelled to face thetrial, it would certainly be an abuse of process of Court. We are,therefore, inclined to exercise our powers under Section 482 of theCr.P.C. to quash the report and charge-sheet in the interest of justiceto prevent the abuse of process of Court against applicant Nos.3 to 12.The application deserves to be partly allowed. Hence, the followingorder is passed.ORDERI)The application is dismissed as withdrawn against applicant Nos.1 and 2. 14criappln No.2609-2023II)The application stands allowed to the extent of applicant Nos.3 to 12.III)The First Information Report and charge-sheet in R.C.C.No.152 of 2023, pending before the learned JudicialMagistrate First Class, Shirpur, Dist. Dhule, arising outof Crime bearing No.0246 of 2023, registered atShirpur City Police Station, Dist. Dhule, dated12.06.2023, for the offences punishable under Sections498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of theIndian Penal Code, 1860 stands quashed againstapplicant Nos.3 to 12. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ] JUDGE[ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGEasd