High Court

Legal Reasoning

1criappln No.2824-2023IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2824 OF 20231.Ashok S/o. Bhagwan Rathod 2.Valabai Wd/o. Bhagwan Rathod3.Vikrant S/o. Pandurang Rathod 4.Pandurang S/o. Hirachand Rathod5.Yashoda W/o. Gunderao Chavan6.Gunderao S/o. Shivaji Chavan7.Shanta W/o. Damaji Chavan8.Divya D/o. Damaji Chavan9.Vinayak S/o. Mohan Banur…. ApplicantsVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra2.The Officer InchargePolice Station Gangakhed3.Surekha W/o. Ashok Rathod …. Respondents....Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Shivaji T. ShelkeAPP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2-State : Mr. A.R. KaleAdvocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. J.A. Menezes.…CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.Dated : 04th March 2025ORDER [PER SANJAY DESHMUKH, J.] :-1.This is an application for quashing the First InformationReport (for short “the FIR”) and charge-sheet bearing No.30 of 2023, 2criappln No.2824-2023dated 31.08.2023, pending before the learned Judicial MagistrateFirst Class, Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani, arising out of Crime bearingNo.0254 of 2023, registered with Gangakhed Police Station,Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani on 14.06.2023 for the offencespunishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of theIndian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”).2.After hearing both the sides, when this Court expresseddisinclination to grant any relief to applicant No.1/husband, learnedAdvocate for the applicants sought withdrawal of the application tothe extent of this applicant. Therefore, the present application isdismissed as withdrawn against applicant No.1 and the matter isproceeded for the reliefs claimed by applicant Nos.2 to 9.3.Learned Advocate for the applicants pointed out thereport dated 14.06.2023, in which respondent No.3/informantaverred that she married with applicant No.1 on 08.12.2009, who isson of applicant No.2/mother-in-law. Applicant No.3 is cousin ofapplicant No.1. Applicant No.4 is uncle of applicant No.1. ApplicantNo.5 is sister of applicant No.1. Applicant No.6 is husband ofapplicant No.5. Applicant No.7 is cousin sister and applicant Nos.8and 9 are niece and nephew of applicant No.1. 3criappln No.2824-20234.The informant further averred that she begotten two sonsviz. Anand aged 08 years and Siddhant aged 07 years. ApplicantNos.8 & 9 were residing with her and her husband at Pune. ApplicantNo.5 was residing adjacent to her house. Applicant No.4 frequentlyused to come at Pune. Her father-in-law viz. Bhagwan HarishchandraRathod died before one and half year. Since then, all the applicantsstarted to harass her. Applicant No.7/cousin sister-in-law onceslapped her. The applicants and her husband demanded Rs.35 Lakhsto her and directed her to fetch that amount from her father. 5.The informant also averred that on 04.05.2022 and03.09.2022, all the applicants slapped her and threatened to kill her.They said that unless and until you bring Rs.35 Lakhs, they will notallow her to stay with them. On 14.05.2023, the applicants said to herthat her brother’s son suffered from illness and brought her to parentshouse. There, they doubted on her character and quarreled andabused her. Therefore, she lodged report on 14.06.2022.6.Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that theomnibus and vague allegations are made against the applicants. Theallegations of demand of money is falsely made. No specific incidentis stated as to when the applicants had demanded money and all the 4criappln No.2824-2023applicants, in furtherance of their common intention, treated theinformant with cruelty. The informant is residing with her sons viz.Anand and Siddhant at her parents house. The witnesses have alsovaguely stated about the alleged cruelty. On account of illicitrelationship between the informant and other person, applicant No.1/husband filed divorce petition in the Court at Pune. It is lastly prayedto allow the application by quashing the report as it would be anabuse of the process of court.7.Learned APP for the State strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that the applicants are involved in theserious crime. They have treated the informant with cruelty andslapped her. The informant is having two sons which shows that shecohabited with applicant No.1/husband for considerable period inspite of facing cruel treatment. He further submitted that names ofthe applicants are mentioned in the FIR. The applicants, infurtherance of their common intention, have treated the informantwith cruelty by frequently harassing her physically and mentally onthe account of demand of money . Hence, he prayed for rejection ofthe application. 5criappln No.2824-20238.Learned Advocate Mr. J.A. Menezes, for respondentNo.3/informant submitted that the applicants are involved in theserious crime. They have frequently harassed the informant and beather. They have caused physical and mental harassment to theinformant by demanding Rs.35 Lakhs for purchasing a flat.Considering the serious allegations of mental and physical crueltysubjected to the informant, it is lastly prayed to reject the application.9.In the contextual situation, it is also relevant to refer tothe decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Wajid andAnother Vs. State of U.P. and Another, reported in 2023 SCC OnlineSC 951; 2023 INSC 683, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court heldthus :-“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 482 ofthe CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not 6criappln No.2824-2023restrict 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….”10.A reference can be made to the judgment in the case ofCBI vs. Aryan Singh, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 379, in whichthe Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under :-“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 ofCr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the minitrial.”11.We have perused the report and charge-sheet. It isadmitted fact that divorce proceedings on the ground of adultery isfiled by applicant No.1 i.e. husband of the informant. The informantis residing with her both sons with her parents. The witnesses,particularly parents of the informant have stated that the applicantsand husband of the informant had demanded Rs.35 Lakhs forpurchasing a flat. In support of said contention, no specific incident isstated by the informant and these witnesses as to when that amountwas demanded. Though it is alleged that, on 04.05.2022 and 7criappln No.2824-202303.09.2022, the applicants and her husband beat her, no any medicalevidence is adduced on record. The omnibus and vague allegationsare made against the applicants.12.In case of Kim Wansoo Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 17, 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.13.Considering all these reasons, the essential ingredients ofSections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the I.P.C. are notestablishing against these applicants. If the applicants are compelledto face the trial, it would certainly be an abuse of process of court. Ifall these aspects are considered together, in view of ratio laid down inthe judgment of Mohammad Wajid, CBI and Kim Wansoo (Supra), weare of the view that exercising of power under Section 482 of theCr.P.C. is essential in the interest of justice. The application deservesto be allowed. Hence, the following order. 8criappln No.2824-2023ORDERI)The application is dismissed as withdrawn as against applicant No.1. II)The application stands allowed to the extent of applicant Nos.2 to 9.III)The First Information Report and charge-sheet bearingNo.30 of 2023, dated 31.08.2023, pending before thelearned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gangakhed,Dist. Parbhani, arising out of Crime bearing No.0254 of2023, registered with Gangakhed Police Station,Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani on 14.06.2023 for theoffences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504,506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,stands quashed and set aside as against applicant No.2Valabai Wd/o. Bhagwan Rathod, No.3 Vikrant S/o.Pandurang Rathod, No.4 Pandurang S/o. HirachandRathod, No.5 Yashoda W/o. Gunderao Chavan, No.6Gunderao S/o. Shivaji Chavan, No.7 Shanta W/o.Damaji Chavan, No.8 Divya D/o. Damaji Chavan andNo.9 Vinayak S/o. Mohan Banur. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ] JUDGE[ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGEasd