High Court
Legal Reasoning
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD49 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4024 OF 20241Manoj Ramesh Chinchole,Age 37 yrs., Occ. Service,2Ramesh Damodar Chinchole,Age 65 yrs., Occ. Business,3Pushpa Ramesh Chinchole,Age 64 yrs., Occ. Household,4Vilas Damodar Chinchole,Age 63 yrs., Occ. Agri.,5Digambar Damodar Chinchole,Age 57 yrs., Occ. Driver,Applicant Nos.1 to 5 are r/o Pawan Galli, Junegaon,At Post Mehunbare, Tq. Chalisgaon,Dist. Jalgaon. 6Pankaj Ramesh Chinchole,Age 38 yrs., Occ. Service,7Rohini Pankaj Chinchole,Age 32 yrs., Occ. Household,Applicant Nos.6 and 7 are R/o Room No.303, House No.1062,Sector No.5, Nishigandh Apartment,Koparkhairne, Dist. Thane. 8Khemraj Bhatu Dashpute,Age 38 yrs., Occ. Service,9Dipali Khemraj Dashpute,Age 33 yrs., Occ. Household,
Legal Reasoning
249_Cri.Appln_4024_2024Applicant Nos.8 and 9 are R/o Flat No.402, B-Building,Majestique Manhattan, Phase 2,Siraj Dokadia Road, Opp. Lexicon School,Wagholi, Pune. 10Janardhan Kashinath Zodge,Age 76 yrs., Occ. Nil,R/o At Post Zodge, Tq. Malegaon,Dist. Nashik. … Applicants… Versus …1The State of MaharashtraThrough Ramanand NagarPolice Station, Jalgaon,Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. 2Punam Manoj Chinchole,Age 30 yrs., Occ. Household,R/o C/o Gopal Vishnu Yeole,Namdev Nagar, Pimprala,Jalgaon. … Respondents...Mr. S.V. Dixit, Advocate for applicantsMr. S.A. Gaikwad, APP for respondent No.1Ms. Poonam Manoj Chinchole, Advocate (appointed through Legal Aid) forrespondent No.2 - absent...CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.DATE:03rd SEPTEMBER, 2025 349_Cri.Appln_4024_2024ORDER : (PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)1Present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure, 1973 initially for quashment of First InformationReport vide Crime No.122/2024 dated 18.04.2024 registered with RamanandNagar Police Station, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon, for the offence punishableunder Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian PenalCode, 1860 and later on by way of amendment for quashing the proceedingsin Regular Criminal Case No.900/2024 pending before learned JudicialMagistrate First Class, Jalgaon. 2Heard learned Advocate Mr. S.V. Dixit for applicants and learnedAPP Mr. S.A. Gaikwad for respondent No.1. Learned Advocate appointedthrough High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Aurangabad to representrespondent No.2 remained absent. 3Leave to correct the name of applicant No.10. Amendment to becarried out immediately. 4Before turning to the disputed facts what is admitted is thatapplicant No.1 got married to respondent No.2 on 09.07.2022. Otherapplicants i.e. applicant Nos.2 to 9 are the relatives of applicant No.1. 449_Cri.Appln_4024_2024Applicant No.10 is in fact maternal uncle of applicant No.2 – father-in-law.That means, at the most, it can be said that he is distantly related torespondent No.2. 5Respondent No.2 in her First Information Report states that shewas treated properly for about two months when in her matrimonial homeshe was residing with husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law. ApplicantNo.9 is sister-in-law, who resides at Pune. Applicant No.6 is brother ofhusband and applicant No.7 is wife of applicant No.6. They both are residingat Thane. Though it appears that applicant Nos.4 and 5 are brothers offather-in-law, they reside separately in the same village. The informant statesthat after two months of marriage applicant Nos.1 to 3, 6, 7 and 9 startedsaying that they were not properly honoured at the time of marriage. It wasagreed that her mother and brother would give amount of Rs.10,00,000/- atthe time of marriage, but it was not given. Those applicants used to givepinching words to her by saying that her behaviour is not proper and she isunable to cook the food properly. Upon the instigation by others, husbandused to assault her and demand amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for theconstruction of house. Threat was given that she will not be allowed tocohabit otherwise. When she used to express her inability, then the accusedused to assault her and he never gave her treatment as his wife. Thus, it is to 549_Cri.Appln_4024_2024be noted that the alleged harassment had started after two months ofmarriage i.e. somewhere in September - October, 2022. When applicantNos.6, 7 and 9 were not residing in the matrimonial home on the daily basisthen question arises, as to when they had come and allegedly instigated thehusband ? Applicant No.8 is the husband of applicant No.9 sister-in-law.Even allegations have been made against him in respect of alleged incidentdated 17.11.2023, but still the question remains, as to when the allegedinstigation was made. If we consider the statement of Smt. Vijaya Yeole andGopal Yeole, that is, mother and brother of respondent No.2, they have notstated that in the talks of settlement of marriage they had promised to giveamount of Rs.10,00,000/-. Now, if that was not promised at all, where wasthe question of making demand of same by making that statement. Theinformant then states that whenever applicant Nos.6 and 7 i.e. brother-in-lawand his wife used to come in holidays to village, they used to instigate thehusband. This is also a vague statement. In which holiday they had comehas not been stated and then it is stated that without any reason they hadpicked up quarrel with her. The words of instigation, the words of dispute orreason for dispute has not been stated. If there was any altercation on triflematter, which can be said to be a regular feature in any house, as there mightbe disputes between co-sisters, but that cannot be taken as cruelty within themeaning of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The informant further 649_Cri.Appln_4024_2024states that her brother had came to fetch her for Diwali festival (precisely for‘Bhaubeej’) on 14.11.2023. Even at that time the husband and parents-in-lawhad given inferior treatment to her brother and she was asked to keep quiet,otherwise she would be driven out of the house. The details about inferiortreatment have not been given in First Information Report as well as in thestatement of Gopal Yeole, the brother. It is then stated that she was sent toher parental home along with brother and since then she is residing withbrother at Pimprala, Jalgaon. 6The informant and witnesses have stated about the incidentaround 3.30 p.m. on 17.11.2023 at Pimprala. It is stated that all theapplicants had gone to parental home of respondent No.2. When they wereoffered water and tea, they refused and they started quarrel in loud voice.When mother tried to stop them, then mother as well as informant wereabused and husband had assaulted respondent No.2. By giving abuses all ofthem went. The First Information Report has no details on what point thedispute in loud voice was raised, but the mother and brother state thataccused persons started saying that they were not properly honoured at thetime of marriage and Rs.10,00,000/- for purchase of house was not given.When mother and their relative Pandurang tried to convince that they do nothave money, at that time applicant No.1 got annoyed and assaulted 749_Cri.Appln_4024_2024respondent No.2 in front of all of them. Here, it is to be noted thatimmediate action appears to have not been taken. That incident had takenplace on 17.11.2023 and First Information Report has been lodged on18.04.2024. In spite of such incident if informant had kept quiet, then itraises doubt. Now, except the statement of relatives there is nothing.Statements of neighbours of parental home of respondent No.2 specifically inrespect of incident dated 17.11.2023 have not been recorded. 7Thus, it can be seen that First Information Report and statementsof witnesses do not specifically attribute a role to each and every applicant.It is hard to believe that applicant Nos.4, 5, 8 and 10 to whom no role wasever attributed would suddenly appear on 17.11.2023, that too, in theparental house of respondent No.2 and then their alleged act would amountto cruelty as defined under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Thecohabitation of respondent No.2 in the house of applicant No.1 is of hardlyone year and three months, out of which according to her, she was treatedproperly for about two months. The cruelty as explained in Section 498-A ofthe Indian Penal Code requires more severe acts and not the usual wear andtear in the marital relationships. Hence, it would be an abuse of process oflaw if applicants are asked to face the trial. Case is made out to exercisepowers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 849_Cri.Appln_4024_2024Hence, following order. ORDERi)Criminal Application stands allowed. ii)The proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.900/2024 pendingbefore learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalgaon, arising out of FirstInformation Report vide Crime No.122/2024 dated 18.04.2024 registeredwith Ramanand Nagar Police Station, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon, for theoffence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, stands quashed and set aside as againstapplicants viz. 1) Manoj Ramesh Chinchole, 2) Ramesh Damodar Chinchole,3) Pushpa Ramesh Chinchole, 4) Vilas Damodar Chinchole, 5) DigambarDamodar Chinchole, 6) Pankaj Ramesh Chinchole, 7) Rohini PankajChinchole, 8) Khemraj Bhatu Dashpute, 9) Dipali Khemraj Dashpute, 10)Janardhan Kashinath Zodge. ( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) agd