High Court · 2025

Legal Reasoning

1criappln No.3121-2023IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3121 OF 20231.Saraswati W/o. Sakharam SanapAge : 52 Years, Occu. : Housewife,2.Sakharam S/o. Bhivaji SanapAge : 58 Years, Occu. : Service/Retired,3.Veer @ Sudarshan S/o. Sakharam SanapAge : 24 Years, Occu. : Service,4.Swati W/o. Ganesh ShirsathAge : 33 Years, Occu. : Service,5.Ujjawala W/o. Yogesh GuteAge : 34 Years, Occu. : Housewife,All R/o. Plot No.58, Gat No.144,Urja Nagar, Near Ayyappa Mandir,Satara Parisar, Aurangabad. …. ApplicantsVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra.2.Kanchan W/o. Akshay SanapAge : 26 Years, Occu. : Housewife,R/o. Pruthvi Park, In front of Kashmir Dhaba, Padegaon, Aurangabad. …. Respondents....Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Rahul P. MoteAPP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. G.A. KulkarniAdvocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Mahesh K. Bhosle.…CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.Dated : 20th March 2025 2criappln No.3121-2023ORDER [PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.] :-1.Heard learned Advocate for both the sides as well aslearned APP for the State.2.This is an application for quashing the First InformationReport (for short “the F.I.R.”) and charge-sheet in R.C.C. No.1299 of2024, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (forshort “the Cr.P.C.”), pending before the learned Judicial MagistrateFirst Class, Court No.11, Aurangabad, arising out of Crime bearingNo.0241 of 2023, registered at Satara Police Station, Aurangabad(City), Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad, dated 29.07.2023, for the offencespunishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the I.P.C.”).3.Learned Advocate for the applicants pointed out thereport dated 29.07.2023, in which respondent No.2/informantaverred that applicant No.1 is her mother-in-law, applicant No.2 isher father-in-law, applicant No.3 is her brother-in-law and applicantNos.4 and 5 are her sisters-in-law.4.The informant further averred in her report that shemarried with the son of applicant Nos.1 and 2 on 17.06.2019. Herfather incurred Rs.30 Lakhs for the marriage i.e. 10 tolas goldornaments, Rs.10 Lakhs as a remuneration, Rs.2.5 Lakhs as the rent of 3criappln No.3121-2023marriage hall, Rs.75,000/- for Orchestra, Rs.50,000/- for DJ system,Rs.60,000/- for band party, Rs.90,000/- for video shooting,Rs.60,000/- for photography. After marriage, she was treated well fortwo to three months. Thereafter, applicant Nos.1 and 2 started toharass her by saying that “your parents’ economic status is not good,the marriage was not properly performed, your parents have nottaught you how to behave properly, you are not capable to do thehousehold chores properly.” All the applicants harassed her for pettyreasons. Thereafter, she and her husband went to reside in a rentedroom. There also, her husband used to quarrel with her for pettyreasons. He left her alone there and went to stay with his parents. Hethreatened her that he will not give the monthly rent and he will notpay money to her for her expenses. 5.The informant further averred in her report that, on01.12.2020, the applicants and her husband had submitted a falseapplication to the Women Grievance Redressal Centre, Aurangabadand withdrawn it on 15.02.2021. Thereafter, her husband said that hehas taken loan for construction of house, for that, she has to fetchsome amount from her parents for construction of house. He took outthe gold ornaments on her person on 12.07.2021 and expelled herfrom the house. 4criappln No.3121-20236.The informant further averred in her report that herhusband came to meet her in the Marathwada University area andasked her to show her mobile handset. She refused to show it. Hesnatched that mobile handset and ran away. She lodged the reportagainst her husband. He doubted her character and abused her. Herbrother-in-law and sisters-in-law i.e. applicant Nos.3 to 5 alsodefamed her. Her husband is serving in the District Court,Aurangabad. He is frequently threatening her that nobody will doanything to him. Her husband said that his father is serving in thepolice department and his sister is serving in the Collector Office.They are having influence in all offices, nobody will help her. Theywere frequently harassing and insulting her. Therefore, the informantlodged the report against the applicants.7.Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted thatnames of the applicants are mentioned in the F.I.R. However, howthese applicants harassed is not stated by the informant in the reportand by the witnesses in their statements, who are relatives of theinformant. The informant was residing with her husband separately ina rented room which was taken on lease in the name of mother of theinformant for the residential purpose only. The applicants have nevertreated the informant with cruelty. They are falsely implicated in the 5criappln No.3121-2023present crime. The essential ingredients of Sections 498-A, 323, 504,506 of I.P.C. are not establishing from the entire charge-sheet. It islastly prayed to allow the application by quashing the report andcharge-sheet against the applicants.8.Learned APP for the State strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that there is a strong evidence of crueltyagainst the applicants. Their names are mentioned in the F.I.R. Inspite of incurring a huge amount in the marriage, the applicantstreated the informant with cruelty by making illegal demand ofmoney, abusing her and caused physical and mental cruelty andcompelled her to reside at her parental house. There is a strongevidence of causing of cruelty against the applicants supported byevidence of witnesses. It is lastly prayed to reject the application. 9.Learned Advocate for respondent No.2/informant alsostrongly opposed the application and submitted that the applicantsare involved in the serious crime. They have treated the informantwith cruelty by making illegal demand of money, abusing her andthey have caused physical and mental cruelty. The specific incidentsare stated by the informant in the report. There are statements ofwitnesses which are corroborating with the version of the informant. 6criappln No.3121-2023Names of the applicants are mentioned in the report. There is a strongevidence against the applicants to proceed further with the trial. Insuch a fact situation, the application deserves to be rejected as there isa reliable evidence against the applicants. He prayed to reject theapplication.10.In the context of this case, it would be relevant to referthe following case laws :i) Mohammad Wajid and Another Vs. State of U.P. andAnother, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 951; 2023 INSC 683,wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the law asfollows :-“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 482of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need notrestrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered 7criappln No.3121-2023to take into account the overall circumstances leading tothe initiation/registration of the case as well as thematerials collected in the course of investigation….”ii)CBI vs. Aryan Singh, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC379, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows :-“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 of Cr.P.C.,the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial.”iii)Kim Wansoo Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reportedin 2025 SCC Online SC 17, wherein 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.11.We have perused the charge-sheet, particularly reportand statements of the witnesses. From the report itself, it is crystalclear that most of the serious allegations of causing cruelty are madeby the informant against her husband that he harassed and left her ina rented room and he directed her to pay the rent of that room. Herefused to pay money for her daily expenses. 8criappln No.3121-202312.It is alleged that the informant was harassed to bring themoney from her parents for paying the loan amount of theconstruction of house. Her gold ornaments were taken away on12.07.2021 by her husband. The incident of snatching her mobilehandset and doubting her character took place at the university area.Though it is alleged that the applicants defamed the informant, themanner in which she was defamed is not stated. No specific incidentis stated by the informant in her report as to how and when theapplicants individually caused her cruelty. Applicant No.1 is serving inthe police department and applicant No.4 is serving in the CollectorOffice, Aurangabad and they threatened that they are havinginfluence in the Government offices, hence nobody will do anythingto them. Those are vague allegations against these applicants. Whenthose threats were given is not stated in the report or in thestatements of witnesses. The general, vague and omnibus allegationsare made against the applicants by the informant, which are notsustainable. The allegations of cruelty are made against the husbandof the informant. He is not a party to this application. From thoseallegations, the essential ingredients of Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506of I.P.C. are not establishing against the applicants. 9criappln No.3121-202313.Considering all these aspects, we are of the view that,this is a fit case in which the report and charge-sheet can be quashedin the interest of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of Court.If the applicants are compelled to face the trial, it would certainly bean abuse of process of Court. We are, therefore, inclined to allow theapplication by invoking our inherent powers under Section 482 ofCr.P.C., in the interest of justice to prevent the abuse of process ofCourt. The application deserves to be allowed. Hence, the followingorder.ORDERI)The application stands allowed.II)The First Information Report and charge-sheet in R.C.C.No.1299 of 2024, pending before the learned JudicialMagistrate First Class, Court No.11, Aurangabad,arising out of Crime bearing No.0241 of 2023,registered at Satara Police Station, Aurangabad (City), Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad, dated 29.07.2023, for theoffences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504,506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 stands quashed against the applicants. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ] JUDGE[ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGEasd