High Court
Legal Reasoning
1APPLN.2998.2023.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2998 OF 20231]Ameykumar s/o Nitinchandra Patil,Age: 26 years, Occ: Private ServiceR/o: A-1, 'Apurva', SamarthaSahniwas,Near Adalat Road, Opp. Bhagya Nagar,Aurangabad-431001.2]Nitinchandra s/o Shriram Patil,Age: 53 years, Occ: BusinessR/o: A-1, 'Apurva', SamarthaSahniwas,Near Adalat Road, Opp. Bhagya Nagar,Aurangabad-431001.3]Unnati w/o Nitinchandra PatilAge: 48 years, Occ: HouseholdR/o: A-1, 'Apurva', SamarthaSahniwas,Near Adalat Road, Opp. Bhagya Nagar,Aurangabad-431001.4]Apurva d/o Nitinchandra PatilAge: 21 years, Occ: Education R/o: A-1, 'Apurva', SamarthaSahniwas, Near Adalat Road, Opp. Bhagya Nagar, Aurangabad-431001.… ApplicantsVersus1]The State of Maharashtra.2]Aishwarya s/o Ameykumar PatilAge: 26 years, Occ: Service, R/o: C/o Ashok Sadashiv Late M-22, Flat No. 280, Near Baba Petrol Pump, New Mhada Colony Aurangabad.… Respondents 2APPLN.2998.2023.odt...Mr. Nilesh Ghanekar, h/f Mr. Nagesh J. Sonune, Advocate for Applicants.Smt. P. R. Bharaswadkar, APP for Respondent No.1 / State.Mr. Joslyn A. Menezes, Advocate for Respondent No.2....CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE :04th April, 2025.O R D E R: (Per Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.)1Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 2This is an application under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) for quashing of theproceedings in Special Case No.273 of 2023, pending in the Court oflearned Special Judge, Aurangabad, arising out of FIR bearing CrimeNo.134 of 2023, dated 28th April, 2023, registered with Kranti ChowkPolice Station, Aurangabad City, District Aurangabad, for the offencespunishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of theIndian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) ofScheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989. 3After hearing to both the sides at length, when this Courtexpressed disinclination to grant relief to applicant Nos.1 to 3, the
Legal Reasoning
3APPLN.2998.2023.odtlearned counsel for the applicants, on instructions, seeks leave towithdraw the application of applicant Nos.1 to 3. Leave granted.Hereinafter, applicant No.4 is referred to as the “applicant”. 4It is averred in the report by informant that on 24th May,2021, she entered into an inter-caste registered marriage with accusedNo.1, which was not liked by her in-laws and the applicant, who issister-in-law of the informant. After the marriage, the informant and herhusband stayed at the house of the mother of informant for about threemonths. Thereafter, her father-in-law made phone call to the husbandof informant and said to him that why he is residing in the prostitute’shouse. He assured that he will arrange one room on rent near to hishouse. He requested him to come to reside there. 5The informant further averred that from 1st September,2021, she and her husband started to reside at Flat No. 5, SamarthHousing Society, behind Tapadia Kasliwal Ground, Bhagyanagar,Aurangabad. Later, the informant became pregnant. After knowingthe same, the mother-in-law of the informant came to the informantand told her to terminate the pregnancy. She said to informant that“we do not want your caste’s generation to be spread in our family”.The informant refused to terminate the pregnancy. Her mother-in-lawbecame upset and the husband of the informant started to harass the 4APPLN.2998.2023.odtinformant on the instigation of his mother. 6On 27th February, 2022, at about 12:30 am to 01:00 am,the husband of informant abused and beaten her. He said to theinformant that “I do not like you. You belong to a lower caste. You arenot giving me meals on time”. He kicked on her stomach and backand also slapped her. The in-laws of the informant were residingadjacent to the said flat. The husband of informant shouted from thewindow that he will cut the informant into pieces and eliminate her.Upon that, her in-laws and the applicant came there in the house. Theapplicant said to the informant that they would get the husband ofinformant married to someone from a higher caste than her and thather divorce could easily be arranged and taken. That time, her in-lawsabused her in filthy language and accused her of trapping their son formoney and property. They said their family’s reputation was ruinedbecause of the informant. 7The informant further averred that on 6th March, 2022 atabout 10:30 am, her father-in-law made phone call to her husband andsaid that to him that “where is your wife. I will show my power to her.”Thereafter, his relatives came. They asked the informant as to whenshe is terminating her pregnancy. They said that if the informant is notdoing so, they will do that. They said that they do not want to 5APPLN.2998.2023.odtcontaminate the generation of their family. They took her husband totheir house. The informant stayed in the rented room alone till 21stMarch, 2022. Thereafter, she made complaint to the Bharosa Cell,Aurangabad. Without informing the informant, her in-laws took awayher belongings, when she went to the date fixed by the Bharosa Cell.Her in-laws also refused to take her back. The informant furtheraverred that when she went to lodge the report at Kranti Chowk PoliceStation, the police officer convinced her husband. They both stayedunder one roof for one month. Thereafter, she went for delivery to herparents. That time, the husband of the informant said that his parentsare insisting to leave the informant. They expelled her husband fromthe house. On 12th June, 2022, the informant delivered a baby girl.Therefore, her in-laws became very upset. Since then the informant isresiding with her parents. Her husband never came to see the babyand avoided answering when asked if he would take the informantback ? That time he said to the informant that he is serving atHyderabad. The informant asked her husband to pay some amount forthe girl child. He told her to bring the child to him and he would decidewhat to do. The informant, thereafter, went to her husband’s house atBhagyanagar. He said to the informant that he is a naked man, he hasno money. He said to the informant to maintain herself and even said,“even if the baby dies, I don’t care”. He abused and refused to takethe daughter to the hospital. She called help of the police. The police 6APPLN.2998.2023.odtconvinced her husband. He then took her to the hospital. While takingher to the hospital, her husband slapped her. After the treatment,when they came back, her husband told her that he will not maintainher, if she needs money, she should become a prostitute, he will bringclients for her. He then strangled her and threatened to throw the babyfrom the bridge. He said he would kill both i.e. the informant and thechild and claimed he had no feelings left. He accused her ofblackmailing him using the baby. That night, he left the informant andthe baby on the footpath near DNS Bank and forced her to sleep there.He even tried to push her into prostitution. He then said he would getmedicine from a medical shop but never returned. The informant wentto the police station for lodging the report. Her husband also camethere for lodging the report against her. The informant was doing aprivate job. On 20th February, 2023 at about 09:00 to 09:15 am, whenthe informant was coming back from work, at the corner of the gate ofMHADA colony, her in-laws were already standing there. Theystopped her and threatened her to withdraw the complaint. They saidto the informant that “You showed nature of your Mahar caste. This iswhy we never took you into our home. Yes, we will abuse on yourcaste. Do whatever you want. Stop going to the police or you will facedire consequences.” Therefore, she lodged the report against herhusband, in-laws and the applicant. 7APPLN.2998.2023.odt8The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that theapplicant is falsely implicated in the crime. She has no concern withthe said crime. Her name is taken only because she is the sister of thehusband of informant. There are vague allegations against her. Thespecific incident about alleged abuses on the caste, looking downupon her and treating the informant with cruelty are not specificallystated by informant either in the report or in the statements ofwitnesses against this applicant. The applicant is a student. Theinformant is taking disadvantage of her caste. He submitted that theessential ingredients of Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) ofScheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,are not establishing against the applicant. He lastly prayed to allowthe application. 9The learned APP for the State strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that the applicant is involved in the seriouscrime. Her names is mentioned in the report. The applicant abusedthe informant in filthy language. She lastly prayed to reject theapplication. 10The learned counsel for the informant / respondent No.2also strongly opposed the application. He submitted that the name of 8APPLN.2998.2023.odtthe applicant is mentioned in the report. She treated the informant withcruelty. She abused the informant in filthy language by taking thename of her caste. She is involved in serious crime. He lastly prayedto reject the application. 11Here, 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 lookinto the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for thepurpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredientsto constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. Infrivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a dutyto look into many other attending circumstances emergingfrom the record of the case over and above the avermentsand, if need be, with due care and circumspection try toread in between the lines. The Court while exercising itsjurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 ofthe Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage ofa case but is empowered to take into account the overallcircumstances leading to the initiation/registration of thecase as well as the materials collected in the course ofinvestigation....” 9APPLN.2998.2023.odt12A 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:- “Para 10… As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stageof discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings,while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C.,the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial.”13We have perused the report and the charge-sheet,particularly, the statements of witnesses so also the caste certificate ofthe informant, which shows that she belongs to a Scheduled Castecommunity (MAHAR). It is alleged that the applicant abused theinformant on the caste, however, particular incident is not stated by theinformant as to when she was abused by the applicant on the caste.There are serious allegations against applicant Nos.1 to 3 and itappears from the report and the statements of witnesses that theytreated the informant with cruelty and abused her in a filthy languageon her caste. The application of applicant Nos.1 to 3 is withdrawn.The allegation against the applicant (applicant No.4) is that she onlystated to the informant that they would get the husband of informantmarried to someone from a higher caste and that a divorce couldeasily be arranged. She had not abused the informant on her caste.In the entire report, it is not specifically stated as to when the applicant 10APPLN.2998.2023.odtabused the informant on caste. She insisted her for the divorce, whichcertainly is not cruelty as contemplated by Section 498-A of the IPC.Saying such words like to take divorce and we will perform marriagewith the girl of higher caste, do not establish the cruelty as there is nodemand of money, dowry or cruelty driving her to commit suicide asper Section 498-A of the IPC. 14Considering all these aspects together, we are of the viewthat if the applicant (applicant No.4) is directed to face the trial, it wouldcertainly be an abuse of the process of Court. We are therefore,inclined to allow the application to the extent of applicant No.4 byexercising our inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.Hence, the authority of Honourable Supreme Court in the case ofAluri Venkata Ramana Vs. Aluri Thirupathi Rao and Ors,MANU/SCOR/151680/2024, is not helpful for the learned counsel forrespondent No.2. 15In the result, the following order is passed:-O R D E RI.The application of applicant Nos.1 to 3 standsdismissed as withdrawn.II.The proceedings in Special Case No.273 of 2023,pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, 11APPLN.2998.2023.odtAurangabad, arising out of FIR bearing Crime No.134of 2023, dated 28th April, 2023, registered with KrantiChowk Police Station, Aurangabad City, DistrictAurangabad, for the offences punishable underSections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of theIndian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(r) and3(1)(s) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, stands quashedto the extent of applicant No.4 (Apurva NitinchandraPatil) only.III.The application stands disposed of. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]nga