High Court

Legal Reasoning

cran3061.23-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3061 OF 20231.Suresh s/o Khandu KhadeAge 37 years, Occ. ServiceR/o. Room No.3, Ram Kuber Chawl,S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai2.Sushilabai w/o Khandu KhadeAge 77 years, Occ. HousewifeR/o. As above 3.Sarika Chandrakant GhugeAge 41 years, Occ. Self employed,R/o. N-1-16, Shivaji Chowk,Near Shani Mandir, Old CidcoTq. and District Nashik 4.Chandrakant s/o Ramdas GhugeAge 47 years, Occ. PhotographerR/o. As above ...Applicants Versus 1.The State of Maharashtra Through Police InspectorGangakhed, Tq. GangakhedDistrict Parbhani 2.Ranjana w/o Suresh KhadeAge 27 years, Occ. HousewifeR/o. Panhalsathe, Tq. Yeola,Dist. Nashik, C/o. TuljabhavaniNagar, Gangakhed, Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani...Respondents …..Mr. Kartik Katariya h/f Mr. Eklavya Potdar, Advocate for applicantsMr. G.A. Kulkarni, A.P.P. for the respondent No.1 ….. cran3061.23-2- CORAM:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATED:23rd JULY, 2025 O R D E R (PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) :- 1.Heard learned advocate for the applicants and learnedA.P.P. for respondent No.1 State. None present for respondent No.2.2.This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) for quashing ofF.I.R. No. 281 of 2023 dated 5.7.2023 registered with Gangakhedpolice Station, district Parbhani for the offences punishable underSections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 r.w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short “the I.P.C.”) and the consequential criminalproceeding bearing R.C.C. No. 291 of 2023 pending before theJudicial Magistrate First Class, Gangakhed, District Parbhani.3.The informant averred in the report that the applicant No.1is her husband, applicant No.2 is mother in law, applicant No.3 issister in law and applicant No.4 is the husband of applicant No.3.4.The informant further averred in the report that she marriedwith applicant No.1 on 19.6.2017. In her marriage, all householdarticles were given. After marriage, she went to cohabit with theapplicant No.1 at Diva, district Thane, alongwith applicant No.2. She cran3061.23-3- was cohabiting there happily for six months. However, after a periodof six months of her marriage, the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 started toharass her by demanding Rs.10,00,000/-. The applicant No.2 usedto harass her on trivial reasons. Applicant No.1 was doubting hercharacter and he used to abuse and beat her. The applicant Nos. 3and 4 used to come at their residence once in a week. It is allegedthat applicant Nos. 3 and 4 were instigating applicant No.1 uponwhich he used to beat her. When the informant informed about thatharassment to her parents, they stated that after some days, therewill be a change. After six months, she begot a daughter viz.Rajnandini. However, temper of the applicants was not changed. Allof them starved and beat her for non fulfillment of demand ofRs.10,00,000/-. The informant was driven out from the housealongwith her daughter.5.The informant further averred that on 2.3.2023 at about9.00 a.m. when the informant was at her parents house, all theapplicants came there and said that either she pay Rs.10,00,000/- orgive divorce to applicant No.1. They told her that if she is not givingdivorce, they will eliminate her. They abused and beaten theinformant, her mother and brother. At that time, the neighbours DilipMurkute and Sachin Gangadhar Kusle came there and separated thequarrel. The informant further averred that she made an application cran3061.23-4- to the Women’s Grievance Redressal Cell at Parbhani. Total fourmeetings were conducted, however, the matter could not be settled.The informant thereafter lodged the report.6.Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that vagueand general allegations are made against the applicants. There isinordinate delay in lodging the report and the informant has not giventhe plausible reason for that delay. The witnesses are relatives andinterested witnesses. Learned advocate lastly prayed to allow theapplication.7.Learned A.P.P. for respondent No.1 State strongly opposedthe application by submitting that the applicants have treated theinformant with cruelty, physically as well as mentally. There was aillegal demand of Rs.10,00,000/- on the part of all applicants forpurchase of plot. The names of the applicants are mentioned in thereport with their specific roles, which are attributed to each of theapplicants. They cannot be exonerated from the criminal liabilityunder Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 r.w. 34 of the I.P.C. It islastly prayed to reject the application. 8.It would be relevant to rely upon the judgment of theHon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Disha Kapoor vs. State of cran3061.23-5- Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC1070, wherein it is held that the Courts to be doubly cautious andextremely careful in dealing with such complaints, especially sincethe ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and not only topunish the guilty but also to protect the innocent.9.We have perused the charge sheet, particularly the report andthe statements of the witnesses. The witnesses have stated similarfacts as stated by the informant in her report. There are specificallegations of harassment and beating as well as the demand ofamount of Rs.10,00,000/- made against applicant No. 1 and 2 in thereport and the same is supported by the witnesses. The allegationsof cruelty caused to the informant on account of doubting hercharacter are made against applicant No.1, who is husband of theinformant. The informant was residing at matrimonial home inMumbai with applicant Nos.1 and 2. The allegations of cruelty i.e.beating and demand of amount to the informant are made againstthe applicant Nos. 1 and 2, which establishes essential ingredients ofSection 498-A of the I.P.C. i.e. illegal demand are establishingagainst them. Further there is averment in the report that she wasbeaten by applicant No.1-husband. Thus, there is material as toabusing, insulting, threatening and causing intimidation to theinformant on the part of applicant Nos. 1 and 2, which establishes the cran3061.23-6- essential ingredients of sections 504 and 506 r.w. 34 of the I.P.C.against applicant Nos.1 and 2. If all these aspects are consideredtogether, the application of applicant Nos. 1 and 2 deserves to berejected, as there is reliable materiel against them for the offencespunishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C.Therefore, it is not a fit case where this Court should exercise itspowers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to the extent of applicantNos. 1 and 2.10.As far as applicant Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, their marriagewas solemnized on 22.4.2023 i.e. prior to the date of filing of thereport. As far as the cruelty on account of demand of Rs.10,00,000/-is concerned, the role of applicant No. 3 and 4 is not specificallystated as to when they demanded the said amount and harassed theinformant for it. There is no reliable material of alleged demand ofmoney on the part of applicant Nos. 3 and 4. The cruelty as definedin Section 498-A of I.P.C. i.e. cruelty coupled with demand or drivingto commit suicide is not established against them. Further, there isno material against the applicant Nos. 3 and 4 that they voluntarilycaused hurt, the criminal intimidation and intentional insult of theinformant to proceed against them under Section 323, 504 and 506of I.P.C. Vague and general allegations of cruelty are made againstapplicant Nos. 3 and 4 without having supportive material. The cran3061.23-7- allegations of cruelty are improbable and do not establish theessential ingredients of Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 r.w. 34 ofthe I.P.C. as against applicant Nos. 3 and 4. Therefore, on suchgeneral and vague allegations and as per law laid down by theHon’ble Apex Court in the case of Disha Kapoor vs. State of UttarPradesh and others (supra), only because applicant Nos. 3 and 4are relatives of the in-laws of the informant, compelling them to facethe trial, would be an abuse of the process of the court. The case ismade out for exercise of our extraordinary powers under section 482of the Cr.P.C. in respect of applicant Nos. 3 and 4. We are therefore,inclined to allow the application to the extent of applicant Nos. 3 and4, in the interest of justice to prevent the abuse of process of theCourt. Hence, the following order:-O R D E RI.The application stands partly allowed.II.The application stands rejected to the extent of applicant Nos.1 and 2. III.The F.I.R. No. 281 of 2023 dated 5.7.2023 registered withGangakhed police Station, district Parbhani for the offencespunishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 r.w. 34 ofthe I.P.C. and the consequential criminal proceeding bearing cran3061.23-8- R.C.C. No. 291 of 2023 pending before the Judicial Magistrate,First Class, Gangakhed, District Parbhani, stand quashed andset aside as against applicant Nos. 3 and 4. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)rlj/