High Court
Legal Reasoning
(1)criapln3595.24IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3595 OF 20241.Shilratna Murlidhar Kamble,...APPLICANTSAge-39 yrs, Occu-Retired Pensioner,R/o. Bhimnagar, Tq. Tuljapur,Dist. Osmanabad(Husband of informant/org. Accused No.1)2.Sumit Satish Gaikwad,Age-25 yrs, Occu-Labourer,R/o. As above,(Son of sister in law/Org. Accused No.2)3.Utkarsh Vidyadhar Waghmare@ Utkarsh Sudhir BhaleraoAge-27 yrs, Occu-Household,R/o. As above, (Daughter of Sister-in-law/Org. Accused No.3)4.Ulfawati Vidyadhar Waghmare,Age-50 yrs, Occu-Household,R/o. As above,(Sister-in-Law of informant/Org. Accused No.4)5.Ashwini Uttam Gaikwad,Age-34 years, Occu-Household,R/o. Near Filter Tank, Naldurg Road,Tq. Tuljapaur, Dist. Osmanabad(Sister-in-law of informant/Org. Accused No.5)6.Simran Rajaratna Kamble,Age-24 yrs, Occu- Hosehold,R/o. Bhimnagar, Osmanabad(Sister-in-law/wife of brother-in-law Org. accused No.6)1 of 16
Legal Reasoning
(2)criapln3595.247.Suhasini Satish Gaikwad,Age-46 yrs, Occu- Household,R/o. As above,(Sister-in-law/Org. Accused No.7)VERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra, ...RESPONDENTSThrough Police Station InchargeNaldurg Police Station, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad2.Pushpalata Shilratna KambleAge-38 yrs, Occu- Household, R/o. House No. 412, 4th Floor,Building NO. 3, Morya Houshing Society,Pawannagar, Chichwad VillagePune, Dist. Pune. Mr. Abhijit S. More, Advocate for the applicants Mr. A. D. Wange, APP for respondents/StateMr. Sididharth Y. Shinde, Advocate for respondent No. 2CORAM:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.DATE:03rd SEPTEMBER, 2025JUDGMENT [PER: HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. ]1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.2.With the consent of the parties, the criminalapplication is taken up for final disposal at the stage of2 of 16 (3)criapln3595.24admission itself.3.Heard all the parties.4.This application is filed under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of the FIR No.177/2022 alongwith charge-sheet No. 123/2023 filed by theNaldurga Police Station, Dist. Osmanabad against the petitionerswho are arrayed as accused for the offences punishable underSections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.5.The learned advocate for the applicants advanced hisarguments by taking us through the contents of the FIR and theallegations made therein by the complainant. According to thelearned advocate for the applicants the present FIR is filed withan ulterior motive of pressurizing the accused persons who havealready been facing the trial under the Protection of Womenfrom Domestic Violence Act. According to the said learnedcounsel the complainant wished to stay separately with her3 of 16 (4)criapln3595.24husband and because, the husband was not ready separate fromhis other family members, only to pressurize and harass thehusband, the present FIR has been lodged against the husbandas well as other family members. According to him allegationsmade in the FIR are general without there being any substancein the same. The allegations are vague and without anyspecification pertaining to the date or time. It is the submissionthat the complainant had falsely implicated the entire familymembers in the present offence and because the allegationswere found to be false, the Investigating Officer dropped theproceeding against the brother-in-law of the accused No. 1. Thisis sufficient to infer that allegations were made falsely implicatethe entire family members. The FIR does not disclose anyspecific role of any of the accused and in absence of any specificallegations, continuing the criminal offence against them isabuse of process of law. In support of this the learned advocatefor the applicants relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble ApexCourt in the case of Preeti Gupta Vs State of Jharkand 1 . Whileconcluding the arguments, the learned advocate for the1(2010) 7 SCC 6674 of 16 (5)criapln3595.24applicants submitted that abuse of process of law is apparent onthe face of this criminal proceeding and therefore, this courtshould exercise its inherent powers under Sections 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure and quash the entire criminalproceeding arising out of the FIR No. 177/2022 and subsequentproceeding of filing charge-sheet bearing No. 123/2023.6.Countering the arguments of the learned advocatefor the applicants, the learned APP and also the learnedAdvocate for the respondent-complainant submitted that thereare specific allegations of cruelty made in the FIR. The learnedAPP referred to the statements recorded by the InvestigatingOfficer under Sections 161 of the Cr. P. C. and submitted that allthe statements corroborates the allegations made by thecomplainant in the FIR. Together they constitute sufficientmaterial and therefore, it is not a fit case for quashing the FIRand charge-sheet.7.With the assistance of the respective counsels, we5 of 16 (6)criapln3595.24have perused the entire charge-sheet which has been placed onrecord. The contents of the FIR makes references to certaininstances of physical and mental cruelty. The allegations aremade against all the applicants. The gist of the allegations thatcan be noted from the FIR that the complainant was harassed bythe applicants under the pretext that she will not be able to givebirth to a normal child. There are also allegations that applicantNos. 2 to 7 were instigating applicant No. 1 who is the husbandto get separated from the complainant and perform secondmarriage. There are also allegations that all the petitioners fromtime to time have also physically assaulted the complainant.8.Upon perusing the copy of the FIR & Charge-sheetthough there are allegations made by the complainant, we findthat all the allegations are vague in nature and none of themspecified as to when and as to who have actually committedcruelty upon the complainant. The important fact cannot be overlooked that the marriage between applicant No. 1 andcomplainant was performed on 01-03-2009 and the alleged6 of 16 (7)criapln3595.24complaint has been registered on 09-06-2022. Thus, themarriage between them subsisted almost for a period of 13 yearsand thereafter these allegations have been made. FIR itselfmentions that during the marriage and thereafter till 2020,applicant No. 1 who is husband was in a Military Services andtherefore, he used to visit his residence only during his holidays.9.The learned advocate for the applicants duringarguments has brought to our notice that the complainant hastwin daughters and one son from applicant No. 1. This raisesdoubt about the complainant’s allegations that she was beingtortured by the family members that she will not be able to givebirth to a normal child. Second important aspect is that themarriage between applicant No.1 and complainant subsisted foralmost 13 years, during which there is no material placed onrecord by the prosecution to show that the complainant has everfiled any complaint or raised any grievance with any authoritiesabout the cruelty that has been caused to her.7 of 16 (8)criapln3595.2410.We have also perused the statements that has beenrecorded under section 161 of the Cr. P. C. by the InvestigatingOfficer which are annexed to the charge-sheet. All thestatements are not only stereo type but they are in verbatumsame and in view of that, it can be said that the statements arecopy pasted statements. All the witnesses whose statementsrecorded are close relatives of the complainant and thereforecan be termed as interested witnesses. To be verify specificstatements are of i] father, ii] mother, iii] aunt, iv] cousinbrother and v] maternal uncle. There is no single statement ofany independent witnesses nor any independent material isplaced on record to corroborate version of the complainant. Weare conscious of the fact that the statements of the victim ismore than sufficient to draw an interference that she has beensubjected to cruelty. However, it is necessary that thoseallegations have to be specific and not vague or generalized. Atleast from perusing the contents of the FIR and material placedon record by way of charge-sheet prosecution does not make outa case under Section 498-A.8 of 16 (9)criapln3595.2411.Even in respect of allegations for constitutingoffences under sections 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC, theinvestigation material is insufficient. Once again we can mentionthat the allegations pertaining to the assault on the complainantare vague in nature and without any specific date or time andneither it is specifically mentioned as to who and when & wherecomplainant was assaulted.12.The learned advocate for the applicants has alsobrought to our notice that the proceeding pertaining to the D. V.Act filed by the complainant against applicant No. 1. On perusalof the said material, we have noted that the allegations made inthe said proceeding are completely different from the allegationsthat are made in the present FIR. In the D. V. proceeding theallegations which are mentioned are as follows :“rq dkGh vkgsl] rq>h yk;dh ukgh] vkbZ ofMy ?kjh vkys ukghikfgts laca/k laiyk- vkR;k okjY;kuarj ek>s ofMy varfo/khykvkys gksrs rsOgk R;kauk tso.k fnys rks R;ko#u jkx /k#u xSjvtZnkjdz- 2]4]5]7 o 10 ;kauh eyk f’kfoxkG d#u xjksnj voLFksrekjgk.k dsyh- eyk ifgyk eqy udks gok gksrk Eg.kwu eh xjksnjvlrkuk ek>k iksVkr cqDds ek#u ?ksr gksrh-”9 of 16 (10)criapln3595.2413.Having examined the matter in depth, we arecompelled to observe that the allegations contained in FIR andcharge-sheet, even if taken at their face value, do not disclosethe commission of offences under section 498-A, 323, 504 and506 of the IPC as against present applicants. What emergesclearly is matrimonial relationship which subsisted for morethan thirteen long years, during which applicant no. 1 andrespondent No. 2 begoten three children. No single compliant isfiled with the police or any other authorities alleging cruelty orharassment until June, 2022 by respondent No. 2. Applicant No.1 was serving in Military and was visiting home only duringholidays. The sudden sarfacing of allegations, after over adecade of marriage and after the initiation of proceeding underthe Domestic Violence Act raise serious doubt about thebonafides of the prosecution.14.It is also significant that the allegations are notparticularised. Section 498-A of the IPC as explained by theapex court in the case of Girdhar Tawade Vs State Of10 of 16 (11)criapln3595.24Maharashtra reported in (2002) 5 SCC 177 requires specificwillful conduct that is so grave in nature that it endangers life,limb or health or constitutes harassment with unlawfuldemands. In the present case, the complainant has notattributed any particular incident, date or role to any individualapplicant which contains aforesaid elements of Section 498-A.Instead, sweeping allegations and omnibus statements havebeen made against the entire family. Such generalizedallegations without details, fails to satisfy the statutoryingredients of cruelty. As observed in the case of KahkashanKausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar reported in 2022 (6) SCC599 it is held precisely such overboard complaints that amountsto abuse of penal provisions and must be nipped in the bud.15.Turning to the allegations of the physical assaultunder section 323 IPC it is once again noted that there is noreference to any date, time or specific act. The complaint merelystates that complainant was assaulted “from time to time”. Thisis too vague to amount to an accusation of voluntarily causing11 of 16 (12)criapln3595.24hurt. At the very least the FIR should disclose the nature of theassault, when it occurred and who committed it. The absence ofsuch particulars renders the allegations a bar incantation ofsection, not a factual foundation.16.Likewise the offence under Section 504 of the IPCrequires intentional insult of such a nature as is likely to provokebreach of peace. Here again the FIR simply states that abuseswere hurted without setting out the actual words or the contextin which they were uttered. Without these elements, the courtcannot infer, either to intention to insult or likelihood ofprovoking the breach of peace.17.Section 506 IPC criminalizes threats intended tocause alarm. The allegations here amount only to vaguereferences to threats, without describing the words used, thecontext, or the reaction of the complainant. In the case ofManik Taneja Vs State of Karnakataka reported in 2015 (7) SCC423, the Supreme Court held that mere expression of anger or12 of 16 (13)criapln3595.24displeasure, absent the intent to cause alarm, is not criminalintimidation. On the facts before us, the essential element ofalarm is entirely missing. 18.The court cannot ignore another aspect, the strikingsimilarity of all witness statement recorded under section 161 ofthe Cr. P. C. They are verbatum reproduction of the complaint’sversion, all emanating from close relatives. No independentmaterial is forth coming. This lends credence to the applicants’contention that the allegations are a product of tutoring andembellishment. In Preeti Gupta (supra) the Supreme Courtobserved that false implication of the relatives is a growingtendency and that court must scrutinies such complaints withgreat care. The present case squarely falls in that category. 19.The inconsistency between the allegations in theDomestic Violence Proceedings and those in the FIR furtherdamages the prosecution case. In the DV proceeding thecomplaint was that the husband family denied her access to13 of 16 (14)criapln3595.24household amenities and subjected her to neglect. In the presentFIR the allegations has shifted to taunts about child birth andinstigation to remarry. This shifting of stands demonstrates alack of credibility and points towards after thought. 20.In the case of State of Haryana Vs Bhajanlal reportedin 1992 Supplementary 1 SCC 335, the Supreme Court laiddown illustrative categories of cases where quashing iswarranted two of those categories squarely applied here. Firstly;where the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, do notdisclose commission of any offence. Secondly; where theproceedings are manifestly attended with malafieds andinstituted with an ulterior motive. Permitting such prosecutionto continue would expose the applicants to the rigorous ofcriminal trial without there being even a prima facie case. 21.Criminal law is a solemn instrument to deal withgenuine wrongs . It cannot be permitted to degenerate into aweapon of harassment in matrimonial discord. The role of the14 of 16 (15)criapln3595.24High Court under section 482 Cr. P. C. is precisely to preventsuch misuse. On an overall conspectus of the facts the law laiddown by the Supreme Court and the material in the Charge-sheet, we are satisfied that the case against the applicants ismanifestly without substance, inherently improbable and anabuse of the process of law. 22.Consequently, we hold that no offence under Section498-A, 323, 504 & 506 IPC are made out against the applicants.Continuation of the proceeding would amount to traversity ofjustice. This is therefore a fit case where the extra ordinaryjurisdiction under section 482 Cr. P. C. must be excised to securethe ends of justice. Hence, the following order:ORDERa]Rule made absolute. b]The criminal application stands allowed. c]The impugned charge-sheet bearing15 of 16 (16)criapln3595.24No.123/2023 dated 14-06-2023 filed in pursuance ofthe FIR bearing Crime No. 177/2022 registered atNaldurg Police Station, Dist. Osmanabad for theoffences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504,506 read with section 34 of the IPC stands quashedand set aside as against all the applicants namely;Shilratna Murlidhar Kamble, Sumit Satish Gaikwad,Utkarsh Vidyadhar Waghmare @ Utkarsh SudhirBhalerao, Ulfawati Vidyadhar Waghmare, AshwiniUttam Gaikwad, Simran Rajaratna Kamble &Suhasini Satish Gaikwad. [HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.]VishalK/criapln3595.2416 of 16