High Court
Legal Reasoning
1APPLN.3399.2024.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3399 OF 20241.Gajanan s/o Vishwanath Suryawanshi,Age 38 years, Occu: Driver,R/o. Borgaon, Tq. Bhokar, District Nanded. 2.Padminibai W/o Vishwanath Suryawanshi,Age 70 years, Occu: Household, R/o. as above. 3.Vishwanath s/o Naryan Suryawanshi,Age 80 years, Occu: Agril, R/o. as above. 4.Avinash s/o Vishwanath Suryawanshi,Age 41 years, Occu: Labour, R/o. as above.5.Sau. Shilpa w/o Avinash Suryawanshi,Age 33 years, Occu: Household, R/o. as above.6.Sau. Jayshree Navanath Mane,Age 43 years, Occu: Household, R/o. Domgaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur.7.Sau. Sharda w/o Madhav Mane,Age 39 years, Occu: Household, R/o. as above.8.Sahebrao s/o Kondiba Kadam,Age 65 years, Occu: Agril, R/o Gandewar Colony, Bhokar, Tq. Bhokar, District Nanded.
Legal Reasoning
2APPLN.3399.2024.odt9.Kishor s/o Sahebrao Kadam,Age 33 years, Occu: Education, R/o. as above.10.Girish s/o Sahebrao Kadam,Age 32 years, Occu: Education, R/o. as above.… ApplicantsVersus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through its Police Station Officer,Bhokar Police Station, District Nanded. 2.Pranjali w/o Gajanan Suryawanshi,Age 24 years, Occu: Household, R/o Borgaon, Tq. Bhokar, District Nanded. At present Ritha, Tq.Bhokar, District Nanded.… Respondents...Mr. Gautam Jaywant Karne, Advocate for Applicants. Mrs. P. R. Bharaswadkar, APP for respondent No.1 / State. Mr. Avinash D. Hande, Advocate for Respondent No.2....CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE :01st July, 2025.O R D E R: (Per Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.)1Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 2Present application has been filed under Section 482 of 3APPLN.3399.2024.odtthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) forquashment of the proceedings in R.C.C. No.144 of 2023, pending inthe Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhokar, for theoffence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”), as well asCharge Sheet No.168 of 2023, arising out of FIR bearing CrimeNo.331 of 2023, dated 22nd September, 2023, for offences punishableunder Section 498-A, 504, 506 and 507 read with 34 of the IndianPenal Code.3The application of applicant No.1 was dismissed aswithdrawn on 6th February, 2025.4Applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the parents-in-law of theinformant / respondent No.2. Applicant No.4 is the brother-in-law ofthe informant. Applicant No.5 is the wife of applicant No.4. ApplicantNos.6 and 7 are the sisters-in-law of the informant. Applicant No.8 isthe maternal uncle of the husband of informant and applicant Nos.9and 10 are the sons of applicant No.8.5Respondent No.2 / informant averred in the report that hermarriage was solemnized on 9th May, 2016 with the son of applicantNos.2 and 3 as per Hindu religious rites and customs. Whenever 4APPLN.3399.2024.odtapplicant Nos.6 and 7 residents of Domgaon, Taluka Ahmedpur, visitedthe matrimonial home of informant, they used to harass the informantby stating that she did not know how to cook or manage householdchores and that she belonged to a beggar’s family, and therefore, sheshould not be served meals. They further taunted her by saying thatshe should not cohabit with their brother. They insulted her and kepther on starvation on several occasions.6The informant further averred that her husband took her toPune for work purposes, where he was working privately as an estatebroker. While she was also engaged in a private job, a son was bornto them in the year 2019. Thereafter, the household expenses beganto increase, due to which her husband faced financial difficulties andstarted harassing the informant by repeatedly demanding that sheshould bring money from her parental home for household expenses.When she failed to comply, her husband used to assault her frequently.The informant told her parents about the harassment. Her parentscame to Pune and tried to convince her husband and then took herback to her parental village, Ritha. Subsequently, the informant andher father visited Borgaon and tried to speak with the family membersof her husband regarding the cruelty by her husband. At that time,applicant Nos.2 to 5 instructed the informant and her father not to visittheir house again and asked why they were interfering in their family 5APPLN.3399.2024.odtmatters. They further threatened that if they came back again, shewould be assaulted. Thereafter, the informant returned to Rithaalongwith her father. 7The informant further averred that after few days,applicant Nos.8 to 10 came to Ritha to convince the informant.However, instead of pacifying her, they warned her not to live with herhusband and stated that a DNA test would be conducted of the childborn to her and only after that she would be allowed to cohabit. Theyfurther threatened that if she tried to cohabit again with her husband,they would assault her and her father. While she was staying at herparental home, applicant No.8 contacted her by phone call andthreatened her to dissolve the marriage by divorce and accept amonetary settlement or else she might proceed to file a policecomplaint, and in that event, they would secure bail by using theirfinancial power. 8The informant further averred that on 17th January, 2023,at around 12:00 noon, her father convened a meeting near GudaMahadev Temple for compromising the matter. Several respectedpersons from the village, including Subhash Patil Kinhalkar,Gangadhar Shadulwad and Deepak Polawad and others, were presentat the meeting. However, during the said meeting, her husband and 6APPLN.3399.2024.odtapplicant No.4 objected to cohabitation.9The informant further averred that applicant Nos.2 to 7harassed her by abusing, insulting and starving. Applicant Nos.8 to 10continued to visit her parental home and threatened to kill her.Therefore, she lodged the report. 10The learned counsel for the applicants submitted thatapplicant Nos.2 to 10 are falsely implicated in the crime. There is nocogent and acceptable evidence against them. Vague and generalallegations are made against them. If they are compelled to face thetrial, it would be an abuse of the process of the Court. She lastlyprayed to allow the application. 11The learned APP for the State strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that applicant Nos.2 to 10 are involved in aserious offence. Their names are mentioned in the report. Theycommitted anti-social crime. She lastly prayed to reject theapplication. 12The learned counsel for the informant / respondent No.2also strongly opposed the application. He submitted that the names ofapplicant Nos.2 to 10 are mentioned in the report. They are involved in 7APPLN.3399.2024.odtserious crime. There is strong evidence against them. He lastlyprayed to reject the application. 13Here, 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 look intothe averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for thepurpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients toconstitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. Infrivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty tolook into many other attending circumstances emerging fromthe record of the case over and above the averments and, ifneed be, with due care and circumspection try to read inbetween the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdictionunder Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of theConstitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a casebut is empowered to take into account the overallcircumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the caseas well as the materials collected in the course ofinvestigation....”14A 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 as under:- 8APPLN.3399.2024.odt“Para 10… As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage ofdischarge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, whileexercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Courtis not required to conduct the mini trial.” 15We have perused the charge-sheet, particularly, the reportand the statements of witnesses. The witnesses have stated similarfacts as stated by the informant in the report. 16The application of applicant No.1 is withdrawn. So far asapplicant Nos.2 to 10 are concerned, general and vague allegationsare made against them. No specific incident causing cruelty on thepart of applicant Nos.2 to 10 is stated by the informant in the report.The essential ingredients of Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of theIPC are not establishing against them from entire charge-sheet. If theentire material is considered together with the above reason, then itwould certainly be an abuse of the process of the Court, if applicantNos.2 to 10 are directed to face the trial. We are therefore, inclined toallow the application to the extent of applicant Nos.2 to 10, byexercising our inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in theinterest of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.The application, therefore, deserves to be partly allowed. Hence, thefollowing order:- 9APPLN.3399.2024.odtO R D E RI.The application is partly allowed.II.The application of applicant No.1 is dismissed aswithdrawn by order dated 6th February, 2025.III.The proceedings in R.C.C. No.144 of 2023, pendingin the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,Bhokar, for the offence punishable under Sections498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the IndianPenal Code as well as Charge Sheet No.168 of 2023,arising out of FIR bearing Crime No.331 of 2023,dated 22nd September, 2023, for offences punishableunder Section 498-A, 504, 506 and 507 read with 34of the Indian Penal Code, stands quashed to theextent of applicant Nos.2 to 10 only. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]nga