High Court
Legal Reasoning
-1- Cri.Appln.3325.2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3325 OF 20231.Usha w/o Harischandra Gaikwad,]Age: 63 years, Occ.: Household,]R/o. C/o. B-104, Dhruva Residency]Pashan Road, Wangni (West), ]Tq. Karjat, Dist. Raigad.](Mother-in-law of Resp.No.2 Complainant)2.Harischandra s/o Gaikwad,]Age : 64 years, Occ.: Pensioner, ]R/o. C/o. B-104, Dhruva Residency]Pashan Road, Wangni (West), ]Tq. Karjat, Dist. Raigad. ](Father-in-law of - Resp.No.2 Complainant)3.Riya w/o Vishal Kadam,]Age :37 years, Occ. : Pvt. Service, ]R/o. Near Teachers Colony, Khar, ]Mumbai-51.](Sister-in-law of - Resp.No.2 Complainant)4.Vishal s/o Sharad Kadam,]Age : 40 years, Occ. : Business, ]R/o. Near Teachers Colony, Khar, ] (Husband of the Sister-in-law Mumbai-51. ] of Resp.No.2 Complainant)5. Priya d/o Harischandra Gaikwad,]Age :42 years, Occ.: Household, ]R/o. Building No.30, Pragati Apartment,]Bandra (East), Mumbai-51. ] (Sister-in-law of Resp.No.2 Complainant)6.Ravindra s/o Bhakare,]Age :50 years, Occ.: Service, ]R/o. Ambedkar Chowk, Nagapur MIDC,](Cousin Father-in-law of Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar ] Resp.No.2 Complainant)7.Nandu s/o. Yadav Nikam,]Age : 52 years, Occ.: Rickshaw Driver]R/o. R-1/406, Shiv-Vatika Apartment] (Maternal uncle of Badlapur (West), Dist. Thane ] husband of Resp. No.2 complainant) … APPLICANTSVERSUS
Legal Reasoning
-2- Cri.Appln.3325.20231.The State of Maharashtra,]Through Shrirampur City Police ]Station, Tq. Shrirampur, ]Dist. Ahmednagar ](F.I.R. / Crime No. 0841 ]dated 08.08.2023)]2.Swati w/o. Priyesh Gaikwad,]Age : 32 years, Occu. : Household, ]R/o. B-104, Dhruva Residency, ]Pashan Road, Wangni (West), ]Tq. Karjat, Dist. Raigad]At present : Residing at Gondhawani,]Ward No.1, Shrirampur, ]Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar.] … RESPONDENTS.…Mr. Darshan D. Pokharkar, Advocate for Applicants.Mr. A. M. Phule, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.Mr. Mahesh K. Bhosale, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (Through V.C.)....CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ANDABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.DATED :9th AUGUST, 2024ORDER (PER ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) :1.By instant application, in-laws of respondent no.2, whoregistered FIR for commission of offence punishable under sections 498-A,420 and 406 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) have prayed forquashment of FIR.2.In support of relief, learned counsel for applicants wouldsubmit that, apparently there is false implication on afterthoughtconcocted version. That, it is a clear attempt to implicate the entire family. -3- Cri.Appln.3325.2023Taking this court through the FIR, it is pointed out that, marriage is ofDecember 2022 and FIR is registered in August 2023, alleging that,informant has been cheated by suppressing alleged mental ailment ofhusband. That, husband is not applicant herein. It is further pointed outthat, allegations are also raised regarding demand of Rs.10,00,000/- forpurchase of a flat by issuing threats to not to allow her to cohabit. That,apparently, there are no allegations of harassment or cruelty eitherphysical or mental, and therefore, ingredients of neither section 498-A,nor 420 or 406 are available. It is further pointed out that, all applicantsare residents of distinct places, but still they are roped in with ulteriormotive. That, legal notice was issued by husband for cohabitation. That,husband has instituted proceedings under section 9 of Hindu MarriageAct. That, even otherwise, present applicants, who have no concernedwith the relations of domestic affairs of husband and wife and false reportis lodged with sole intention to harass entire family. Therefore, accordingto learned counsel, there is abuse of process of law and so relief as prayedis sought to be granted. 3.In answer to above, learned counsel appearing forrespondent no. 2 as well as learned APP, both submitted that, apparentlyhusband was of unsound mind. His such mental state condition wassuppressed by applicants till marriage was performed. Informant -4- Cri.Appln.3325.2023experienced about husband’s mental state later on and when sheconfronted family members, only then they informed her about husbandmeeting an accident resulting into mental illness. It is clear cheating.That, there are also allegations of demand of Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore,necessary ingredients being available for trial, relief is opposed.4.Heard both sides. Perused the FIR at Exh.‘A’. It is emergingthat marriage of informant - respondent no.2 was performed with nonapplicant husband on 29.12.2022. According to informant, since she wentto cohabit with husband, she experienced that husband indulged insoliloquy i.e. talking to himself on irrelevant topic. Therefore, shequestioned her in-laws and then they told that he was being giventreatment. She also reported that there was no intimacy or physicalcontact between herself and husband. She has levelled allegations againstmother-in-law for demanding Rs.10,00,000/- for purchasing a flat, thenshe has named present applicant nos.3 to 7, who are relatives, for alsoputting up above demand of money. When she demanded her Streedhan,it was refused to be returned and so she lodged report.5.In a landmark case of Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State ofMaharashtra, (2002) 5 SCC 177, the Hon’ble Apex Court gave succinctenumeration of the object and ingredients of Section 498-A IPC as under : -5- Cri.Appln.3325.2023“3. The basic purport of the statutory provision is to avoid"cruelty" which stands defined by attributing a specific statutorymeaning attached thereto as noticed hereinbefore. Two specificinstances have been taken note of in order to ascribe a meaning tothe word "cruelty" as is expressed by the legislatures: whereasExplanation (a) involves three specific situations viz. (i) to drivethe woman to commit suicide or (ii) to cause grave injury or (iii)danger to life, limb or health, both mental and physical, and thusinvolving a physical torture or atrocity, in Explanation (b) there isabsence of physical injury but the legislature thought it fit toinclude only coercive harassment which obviously as thelegislative intent expressed is equally heinous to match thephysical injury : whereas one is patent, the other one is latent butequally serious in terms of the provisions of the statute since thesame would also embrace the attributes of "cruelty" in terms ofSection 498-A.”In State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Madhusudhan Rao (2008)15 SCC 582, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that, “Harassmentsimplicitor is not cruelty. Only when such harassment is committed for thepurpose of coercing a woman or any other person to meet an unlawfuldemand or property etc. alone would amount to cruelty punishable underSection 498-A IPC”. 6.Taking the entire tenor of FIR into consideration, it is clearlyseen that, there are allegations against parents-in-law i.e. applicant nos.1and 2 for making demand, but there is no material against them forsubjecting informant to any sought of mental or physical cruelty so as toattract section 498A of IPC. However, there are allegations of cheating bysuppression and committing breach of trust of informant. As regards to -6- Cri.Appln.3325.2023rest of the applicants i.e. applicant nos. 3 to 7, there are no allegations ofany sought except alleging they too put up demand of Rs.10,00,000/-.Title clause shows that, applicant nos.3 to 7 are residents of distinctplaces. Neither their roles are defined distinctly nor any instances of anyof the offence to connect them are reflected in the FIR. Implication asregards to applicant nos.3 to 7 is apparently without any material orallegations. There are general, vague and omnibus allegations as againstthem and “cruelty” as contemplated under law and as enumerated inGirdhar Shankar Tawade (supra) being not prima facie available, in theconsidered opinion of this Court, this case falls in the category spelt out inthe case of State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal ; AIR 1992 SC604. 7.Resultantly, the FIR to the extent of 498A of IPC only withregard to applicant nos.1 and 2 is required to be quashed and set aside.Entire FIR as regards to applicant nos.3 to 7 is required to be quashed andset aside. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order :-ORDER(i)The criminal application is partly allowed.(ii)The F.I.R. vide Crime bearing No.841 of 2023, dated08.08.2023 registered with Shrirampur City Police Station, Tq.Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar is quashed and set aside to theextent of offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC only asagainst applicant nos.1 and 2. -7- Cri.Appln.3325.2023iii)The entire F.I.R. vide Crime bearing No.841 of 2023, dated08.08.2023 registered with Shrirampur City Police Station, Tq.Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable undersections 498-A, 420, 406 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code isquashed and set aside to the extent of applicant Nos.3 to 7.(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.) Tandale