High Court
Legal Reasoning
1criappln No.3961-2022IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3961 OF 20221.Pravin S/o. Gopichand Edake,Age : 40 Years, Occu. : Service,R/o. Amalner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2.Surekha W/o. Gopichand Edake,Age : 62 Years, Occu. : Household,R/o. Pasaydan Building, Sonai, Rahuri Road, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3.Gopichand S/o. Vishwanath Edake,Age : 72 Years, Occu. : Retired,R/o. Pasayadan Building, Sonai, Rahuri Road, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. 4.Amol S/o. Gopichand Edake, Age : 41 Years, Occu. : Service,R/o. Near Tehsil Office, Ward No.1,Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar.5.Babasaheb S/o. Mohiniraj Bhagat, Age : 72 Years, Occu. : Agriculture, R/o. Salabatpur, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. …. ApplicantsVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Yusuf Wadgaon Police Station,Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.2.Anita D/o. Pandurang Raut, Age : 30 Years, Occu. : Nil, R/o. Yusuf Wadgaon, Tq. Kaij,Dist. Beed. …. Respondents 2criappln No.3961-2022....Advocate for Applicants : Mr. C.V. DharurkarAPP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. V.K. KotechaAdvocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. A.B. Jagtap.…CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.Dated : 07th July 2025ORDER [PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.] :-1.Heard learned Advocate for both sides as well as learnedAPP 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.135 of2022, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (forshort “the Cr.P.C.”), pending before the learned Judicial MagistrateFirst Class, Kaij, Dist. Beed, arising out of Crime bearing No.0061 of2022, registered with Yusuf Wadgaon Police Station, Dist. Beed,dated 28.04.2022, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short “the I.P.C.”)3.Learned Advocate for the applicants pointed out thereport dated 28.04.2022, in which respondent No.2/informant 3criappln No.3961-2022averred that applicant No.1 is her husband, applicant No.2 is hermother-in-law, applicant No.3 is her father-in-law, applicant No.4 isher brother-in-law and applicant No.5 is the maternal uncle ofapplicant No.1.4.The informant further averred in her report that, shemarried with applicant No.1 on 10.07.2018. After the marriage, shewas treated well for two months. Thereafter, the applicants started toharassing her on trivial reasons. They told her that her husband wasalready married, he has two daughters, he got divorce from his firstwife and the same thing will have to be done to her. She begot adaughter on 20.10.2020 viz. Pranita, from her husband through testtube procedure. After delivery of that girl child, the applicants startedto harassing her mentally and physically by saying that she is aninauspicious woman. Thereafter, the applicants demanded 22 tolas ofgold ornaments. They threatened her that if she is fetching that goldornaments, then only they will allow her to cohabit. They took outher Mangalsutra and entire ornaments on her persons and started toabuse and beat her. They also threatened that they will eliminate her. 5.The informant further averred in her report that sheinformed the incident of demand of gold ornaments to her parents. 4criappln No.3961-2022On 23.01.2021, her father Pandurang Raut, brother Vijaykumar Raut,cousins Arun Raut and Shivdas Thalkari came to village Sonai andrequested the applicants to treat her properly. They stated that theywere unable to provide 22 tolas of gold and they will provide somegold. However, the applicants abused them and said that unless theyare giving 22 tolas of gold ornaments, they would not allow her tocohabit. The applicants said to her that unless she fetched that goldornaments from her parents, she should not return to their house.They drove her and her parents out of the house. 6.The informant further averred in her report that she triedto contact her husband by making phone calls, but he refused tocohabit with her. On 01.02.2022, she made a complaint to theWomen Grievance Redressal Cell, Kaij, Dist. Beed. The applicantswere called there to remain present, but they remained absent.Therefore, she lodged the report.7.Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that theapplicants have been falsely implicated in the crime. General andvague allegations are made against the applicants. Though thespecific incidents of cruelty are stated by the informant in the reportand by the witnesses in their statements, the fact of cruelty is not 5criappln No.3961-2022establishing from the entire charge-sheet against the applicants. Nomedical certificate is produced on record to prove the alleged beating.False allegations of demanding of gold ornaments are made againstthe applicants. The essential ingredients of offences punishable underSections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the I.P.C. are not establishedagainst the applicants. If they are compelled to face the trial, it wouldcertainly be an abuse of the process of the Court. It is lastly prayed toallow the application.8.Learned APP for the State strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that there is strong evidence of crueltyagainst the applicants. Their names are mentioned in the F.I.R. Theapplicants treated the informant with cruelty by demandinggold ornaments and causing physical and mental cruelty andcompelled her to reside at her parents house. It is lastly prayed toreject the application.9.Learned Advocate for respondent No.2/informant alsostrongly opposed the application and submitted that the applicantsare involved in the crime of treating the informant with cruelty. Thespecific incidents are stated by the informant in the report that theseapplicants treated the informant with cruelty by demanding told 6criappln No.3961-2022ornaments. The names of these applicants are mentioned in the F.I.R.There are statements of witnesses corroborating with the version ofthe informant. There is strong evidence against the applicants toproceed further with the trial. Therefore, the application deserves tobe rejected as there is reliable evidence against these applicants toestablish the requisites of offences punishable under Sections 498-A,323, 504 and 506 of the I.P.C. He prayed to reject the application.10.In the context of this case, it would be relevant to referthe following authorities :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 482 7criappln No.3961-2022of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need notrestrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empoweredto 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 the reportand statements of witnesses. The witnesses have stated similar factsas stated by the informant in the report. General and vagueallegations are made against the applicants. No specific incident of 8criappln No.3961-2022cruelty on the part of the applicants is stated by the informant. Therole of each of the applicant is not specifically stated either in thereport or the statements of witnesses. The incident dated 23.01.2021that her parents went to the house of applicant No.1 to convince theapplicants is not supported by reliable material. The essentialingredients of Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the I.P.C. toconstitute the cruelty, etc. are not established against the applicantsfrom the charge-sheet.12.Considering all the aspects, above reasons and law laiddown in the authorities cited supra, if the applicants are compelled toface the trial, it would certainly be an abuse of the process of theCourt. We are, therefore, inclined to exercise our powers underSection 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the report and charge-sheet in theinterest of justice to prevent the abuse of the process of the Courtagainst the applicants. The application deserves to be allowed. Hence,the following order.ORDERI)The application stands allowed.II)The First Information Report and charge-sheet in R.C.C.No.135 of 2022, pending before the learned JudicialMagistrate First Class, Kaij, Dist. Beed, arising out of
Legal Reasoning
9criappln No.3961-2022Crime bearing No.0061 of 2022, registered with YusufWadgaon Police Station, Dist. Beed, dated 28.04.2022,for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323,504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860stands quashed against the applicants. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ] JUDGE[ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGEasd