High Court
Facts
13003.2022APPLN.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3003 OF 20221.Kiran S/o Ganesh AhireAge : 29 years, Occ : Nil,2.Ganesh S/o Limbaji AhireAge : 60 years, Occ : Nil,3.Laxmibai W/o Ganesh AhireAge : 55 years, Occ : Household,4.Kailas S/o Ganesh AhireAge : 32 years, Occ : Pvt. Service,5.Sagar S/o Ganesh AhireAge : 30 years, Occ : Pvt. Service,6.Shital W/o Kailas AhireAge : 26 years, Occ : Household,7.Rohini W/o Sagar AhireAge : 27 years, Occ : Household, All R/o Yashodhara Chaal,Committee-2,Ramabai Ambedkar Nagar,Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai...APPLICANTS-VERSUS-1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Inspector,Police Station, Badnapur,Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna.2.Sow. Ashwini W/o Kiran AhireAge : 21 years, Occ : Household,R/o Yashodhara Chaal, Nalanda Nagar,Vasantrao Naik Marg, Ghatkopar (East),Mumbai at present R/o Dhopateshwar,Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna...RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
73003.2022APPLN.odtRs.2,00,000/- and had forced her to leave the house. 9.We find that applicant Nos.4 and 5 are brothers of thehusband of respondent No.2 and applicant Nos.6 and 7 are their wives.The allegations against these applicants are not specific. They aregeneral in nature. As regards the incident dated 10.02.2021, theallegation suggests that all the applicants had hurled abuses in chorusand had beaten up respondent No.2, which in a sense unbelievable. Asregards applicant Nos.4 to 7 it appears to be a case of over implication.It is apparent from the allegations in the F.I.R. that applicant No.1husband had some issues with respect to the looks, educationalqualification etc of his wife-respondent No.2, resulting in maritaldiscord between them. The intent to implicate all the family membersis apparent in view of the allegations that have been levelled. We findthat the contents of the F.I.R. and material gathered during the courseof investigation are not sufficient to force applicant Nos.4 to 7 toundergo hardship of facing a criminal trial. Continuation of criminalcase against applicant Nos.4 to 7 is not warranted in view of theallegations in the F.I.R. which are general in nature with respect tothem as also the statements recorded during the course ofinvestigation, which also do not ascribe any specific positive act tothem. The F.I.R. and criminal case against applicant Nos.4 to 7 are 83003.2022APPLN.odttherefore, liable to be quashed. Hence we pass the following order :- ORDER(i)The application stands disposed of with respect to applicantNo.1- Kiran S/o Ganesh Ahire, applicant No.2 - Ganesh S/o LimbajiAhire and applicant No.3 - Laxmibai W/o Ganesh Ahire as withdrawn.(ii)The application stands allowed with respect to applicant Nos.4 to7.(iii)F.I.R. No.363/2022 dated 20.07.2022 registered with BadnapurPolice Station, Dist. Jalna, for the offences punishable under Sections498-A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code andsections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as well as Charge-SheetNo.175/2022 dated 14.09.2022 and Regular Criminal CaseNo.225/2022 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,First Class, Badnapur, Dist. Jalna, are hereby quashed against applicantNo.4 – Kailas S/o Ganesh Ahire, applicant No.5 - Sagar S/o GaneshAhire, applicant No.6 - Shital W/o Kailas Ahire and applicant No.7 –Rohini W/o Sagar Ahire.[ROHIT W. JOSHI][ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGEJUDGEsga/
Arguments
23003.2022APPLN.odt...Advocate for the applicants : Mr. Y.L. Bidve h/f Mr.S.V. SalunkeAPP for Respondent- State : Mr. A.M. PhuleAdvocates for respondent No.2 : Mr.R.C. Bora and Mr.S.A. Pathan…CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ANDROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 7th JANUARY, 2025024.JUDGMENT (PER ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) :.The applicants in the present matter have invoked ourinherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure (Cr.P.C.), inter alia, praying to quash F.I.R. No.363/2022dated 20.07.2022 registered against them with Badnapur PoliceStation, Dist. Jalna, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) andsections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as well as Charge-SheetNo.175/2022 dated 14.09.2022 and Regular Criminal CaseNo.225/2022 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,First Class, Badnapur, Dist. Jalna.2.Respondent No.2 is the informant. Respondent No.2 –informant is related to the applicants as under :-(i)Applicant No.1 – husband(ii)Applicant No.2 – father-in-law 33003.2022APPLN.odt(iii)Applicant No.3 – mother-in-law(iv)Applicant No.4 – brother-in-law(v)Applicant No.5 – brother-in-law(vi)Applicant No.6 – wife of applicant No.4(vii)Applicant No.7 – wife of applicant No.53.The marriage of respondent No.2 was solemnized withapplicant No.1 on 29.10.2020. As per contents of F.I.R. respondent No.2was treated well by her in-laws for a period of around three months.She alleges that after initial period of three months, in-laws startedharassing her. The allegation against applicant No.1 – husband is thathe used to speak ill about her stating that she does not know any work.She is not adequately educated and also lame lady. It is also allegedthat he used to beat her intermediately. Respondent No.2 alleges thaton 10.02.2021, applicant No.1 started quarrel by shouting at her andsaid that he does not like her and she should immediately leave thematrimonial house. Respondent No.2 alleges that applicant Nos.2 to 6used to instigate applicant No.1 to desert respondent No.2 and instigatehim to remarry some other girl. Respondent No.2 states that she hadinformed about the said incident dated 10.02.2021 to her parents. Shestates that on the same day i.e. on 10.02.2021 her parents had calledher at Shahid Hall in Mumbai. She states that her in-laws were also 43003.2022APPLN.odtrequested to come to said Hall by her parents. According to her, duringthe course of the meeting held on 10.02.2021 at Shahid Hall herparents and other relatives requested the applicants to treat respondentNo.2 properly and to live together happily. She states that in-lawsagreed that they will behave properly and took her with them forresiding together. She alleges that thereafter in-laws again startedharassing her and on 18.02.2022 at about 2.00 p.m., they asked her toget a gold chain, a motorcycle and Rs.2,00,000/- from her parents andforcibly evicted her from the house asking to return only when shecomes with said amount and articles. Since 18.02.2022, respondentNo.2 is residing with her parents. 4.Learned counsel Mr. Y.L. Bidve h/f Mr.S.V. Salunke for theapplicants contends that the allegations are levelled with an ulteriormotive to browbeat the in-laws for succumbing in to settlement andpart with exorbitant amount, which is claimed by respondent No.2. Hestates that the matter was amicably settled between applicant No.1 andrespondent No.2 before Lok Adalat in Domestic Violence Proceeding on22.03.2022. However, applicant No.1 could not arrange the moneypayable to respondent No.2 in terms of the settlement, and therefore,he filed a petition seeking divorce from respondent No.2 on04.04.2022. He would submit that the F.I.R. is lodged only with a view 53003.2022APPLN.odtto filing of divorce petition by applicant No.1, being H.M.P.No.46/2022. He would then contend that the allegations in the F.I.R.are general and omnibus in nature and as such not enough to make outprima facie case for trial against the applicants. 5.Per contra, Mr. A.M. Phule, learned APP appearing forrespondent No.1 would contend that respondent No.2 has levelled aspecific allegation in the F.I.R. by mentioning dates as also time. Hewould submit that in view of the clear allegations in the F.I.R. which arefurther supported by the statements of witnesses, the applicants willhave to face the trial and at this stage, it can not be said that theoffence under Section 498-A of the IPC is not made out. 6.Learned counsel Mr.R.C. Bora h/f Advocate Mr.S.A. Pathanfor respondent No.2 advanced the submissions on similar lines. Hestates that the mindset of applicant No.1 is apparent from the fact thathe did not honour the settlement arrived at before the Lok Adalat andproceeded to file a petition for divorce anticipating that respondentNo.2 would set criminal law in motion in view of the harassment thatwas meted out to her. 7.After hearing rival submissions for some time, we had 63003.2022APPLN.odtexpressed that applicant Nos.1 to 3 may not be entitled to any relief. Inview of this, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for theapplicants sought instructions and made a statement on instructionsseeking to withdraw the application with respect to applicant Nos.1 to3. We have permitted applicant Nos.1 to 3 to withdraw the application,which stands disposed of against them accordingly. 8.We have heard the rival submissions on merits quaapplicant Nos.4 to 7. Applicant Nos.4 and 5 are brothers-in-law ofrespondent No.2. Applicant Nos.6 and 7 are their wives. Perusal of theF.I.R. will demonstrates that the principal allegations are againstApplicant Nos.1 to 3. There are no specific allegations against applicantNos.4 to 7. Respondent No.2 has alleged that on 10.02.2021, applicantNo.1 was abusing her unnecessarily and at that time, all applicantNos.2 to 7 told him that he should not live with respondent No.2 andshould grant divorce to her. She alleges that she was beaten up by thein-laws and abused on 10.02.2021 and expelled from the house. Abuseallegedly hurled by applicant Nos.2 to 7 are not mentioned. Apart fromthis, person specific allegations are not levelled. The allegations aregeneral in nature. Thereafter, in relation to incident dated 18.02.2022,she has not named any of the applicants. She has only stated that thein-laws had made demand for gold chain, a motorcycle and