High Court
Legal Reasoning
(1) 931-appln-3960-2022.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3960 OF 20221.Vyankatesh Vithalrao Gaikawad (Husband)Age: 33 years, Occ. Agriculture,2.Savita Vithalrao Gaikawad, (Mother-in-Law)Age: 65 years, Occ.: Household / Social service, Both R/o: Safalya Sadan, Safalya Nagar, Near Balaji Mandir, Loha, Tal. Loha, Dist. Nanded.3.Vishakha Chetan Hadolikar(Sister-in-law)Age: 36 years, Occ.: Hose wife, R/o: Muktai Residency, A- 502, Tilak Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai.4.Vijay Kishan Telang,(Distant Brother-in-law)Age: 42 years, Occ.: Service,5.Balu Kishan Telang,(Distant Brother-in-law)Age: 36 years, Occ.: Service,Both 4 and 5 R/o: Yadav Nagar, Loha,Tal. Loha, Dist. Nanded...ApplicantsVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Inspector,Majalgaon City Police Station,Majalgaon, Dist. Beed.2.Ratnapriya Baliram Kamble,(Wife/Informant)Age: 23 years, Occ: Household,R/O: Shivaji Nagar, Majalgaon,Tal. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed...Respondents...Mr. Shomitkumar Vyanktrao Salunke h/f Mr. Y. L. Bidve, Advocatefor Applicants.Mr. G. A. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent No.1.Mr. D. R. Jethliya, Advocate for Respondent No.2.... (2) 931-appln-3960-2022.odt CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ. DATED : 04th SEPTEMBER, 2024.P.C. 1.The present application has been filed under Section 482 ofthe Criminal Procedure Code for quashing FIR vide CrimeNo.261/2022 registered with Majalgaon City Police Station, Dist.Beed on 14.09.2022 by respondent no.2 and charge-sheet bearingRCC No.222/2022 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate FirstClass, Majalgaon, Dist. Beed for offences punishable underSections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2.It is not disputed that respondent no.2 got married withapplicant no.1 on 22.05.2022. The applicant no.2 is mother-in-law,applicant no.3 is married sister-in-law and applicant nos.4 and 5are distant brother-in-laws of respondent no.2.3.Heard the learned Advocate for the applicants, learned APPfor respondent no.1 and learned Advocate for respondent no.2. Inorder to cut short, it can be stated that they all have madesubmissions supporting their respective contentions.4.Perusal of FIR and the statements of witnesses, who arerelatives of respondent no.2 would show that there are no specificand overtact alleged against applicant nos.3, 4 and 5. The FIRdoes not show as to why married sister-in-law and cousin brothersof husband were residing in the matrimonial home of respondentno.2. 5.It has been alleged in the FIR that since the marriage, all theaccused persons were insulting the informant by saying that hercharacter is not good, her family is not good, but then she says thatshe was sustaining the ill-treatment, but when it went beyond her (3) 931-appln-3960-2022.odtsufferance, she disclosed it to her parents and then parents hadgiven advice to accused persons and requested that propertreatment should be given to the informant. According to theinformant, thereafter also there was no difference in behaviour ofthe applicants. Thus in this part of the FIR the allegations are inrespect of insult by doubting the character. However, it is to benoted that it has no background at all. All of a sudden why suchinsult would have been has not been tried to be gathered, even bythe parents, as it is not reflecting in their statements.Interestingly, the statement of witnesses also contend that therewere harassment on the account that dowry has not been given,proper honour was not given in the marriage and whatever articleshave been given are of not good quality. No such allegation madein the FIR. 6.The second part of the FIR relates to the incident alleged tohave been taken place on 11.08.2022 and it is stated that around12.30 pm all the accused had assaulted the informant, gave herthreat to kill for which she lodged report with Loha Police Station.She was kept starved and harassed mentally as well as physicallyand then driven out of the house and since then, she is residingwith her parents. The copy of N.C. complaint is annexed in thecharge-sheet. Perusal of that document would show that she hasnot made any allegation in respect of any incident prior to11.08.2022. She says that on 11.08.2022, she had given a phonecall to her brother around 07.00 am and told him that sinceyesterday her husband and mother-in-law were quarreling withher without any ground and, therefore, she should be taken to hermother, thereby the brother was called. Around 12.30 pm herbrother Ketan and cousin Vishal came to take her. She packed herbaggages and at that time applicant nos.1 to 3 and 5 restrained herfrom going alone with brother. At that time, she told those (4) 931-appln-3960-2022.odtapplicants that she has no desire to stay with them, as they areharassing her daily and she wants to go with her brother.Thereafter, the applicants started abusing her and then assaultedher. Then threat was given that if she goes then dire consequenceswill follow. Thus perusal of said N.C. complaint lodged by her istotally against the contentions in the FIR. Even on that day alsoshe could have lodged FIR for offence punishable under Section498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Advocate forrespondent no.2 has tried to contend that N.C. is not happilyworded, but that does not affect the stand taken by and the factsgiven in the FIR. Perusal of the statement of the brother Ketanwould show that he is totally silent about his visit to thematrimonial home of the sister and what happened their as statedin the N.C. complaint. Here we are not considering thosestatements for contradiction, but note of it is taken only to theextent of difference in facts tried to be narrated by the parties.7.We would like to rely on the decision of the learned SingleBench of this Court in case of Ravindra Pyarelal Bidlan AndOthers vs State Of Maharashtra1 and decision of Supreme Courtof India in case of Manju Ram Kalita Vs. State of Assam2,wherein following are observations:“In the instant case, as the allegation of demand of dowry is notthere, we are not concerned with clause (b) of the explanation.The elements of cruelty so far as clause (a) is concerned, havebeen classified as follows : (i) any ‘wilful’ conduct which is of such a nature as islikely to drive the woman to commit suicide; or (ii) any ‘wilful’ conduct which is likely to cause graveinjury to the woman; or (iii) any ‘wilful’ act which is likely to cause danger to life,limb or health, whether physical or mental of the woman.”11993 (1) Mh.L.J 658.2(2009) 13 SCC 330. (5) 931-appln-3960-2022.odtand in case of Girdhar Shankar Tawade Vs. State ofMaharashtra3, wherein following are the observations:“The basic purport of the statutory provision is to avoid‘cruelty’ which stands defined by attributing a specificstatutory meaning attached thereto as noticed herein before.Two specific instances have been taken note of in order toascribe a meaning to the word 'cruelty' as is expressed bythe legislatures : Whereas explanation (a) involves threespecific situations viz., (i) to drive the woman to commitsuicide 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 is absence of physical injury but the legislaturethought it fit to include only coercive harassment whichobviously as the legislative intent expressed is equallyheinous to match the physical injury : whereas one is patent,the other one is latent but equally serious in terms of theprovisions of the statute since the same would also embrancethe attributes of 'cruelty' in terms of Section 498-A.”8.Thus taking into consideration the contents of the FIR andthe law laid down in the above authorities, we are of the opinionthat offence is not made out even as against applicant nos.1 and 2.The case is squarely covered in the parameters laid down in case ofState of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors.4 and,therefore, this is a fit case where we should exercise our inherentpowers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Hence,following order:ORDERa.Criminal Application is allowed.b.The FIR vide Crime No.261/2022 dated 14.09.2022 registeredwith Majalgaon City Police Station, Dist. Beed and the charge-sheet i.e. proceeding in RCC No.222/2022 pending before learnedJudicial Magistrate First Class, Majalgaon, Dist. Beed for offence32002 (5) SCC 177.4AIR 1992 SC 604.
Legal Reasoning
(6) 931-appln-3960-2022.odtpunishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of theIndian Penal Code stand quashed and set aside as againstapplicant nos.1 to 5.c.Criminal Application is disposed of. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI) JUDGE JUDGEDevendra/September-2024