High Court

Legal Reasoning

cran4527.24-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4527 OF 20241.Nivrutti s/o Narayan Kadam,Age 61 years, Occ. Labour,(father in law)2.Anjanbai w/o Nivrutti Kadam,Age 53 years, Occ. Household(mother in law) Both R/o. Pandurang NagarJintur Road, ParbhaniTq. And district Parbhani 3.Meera w/o Prakash KambleAge 37 years, Occ. HouseholdR/o. House No. 104, Building No.14,Paithan Road, Mhada Colony,Nakshtrawadi, Chh SambhajinagarTq. and Dist Chh. Sambhajinagar(sister in law) 4.Prakash s/o Shivaji KambleAge 37 years, Occ. ServiceR/o. House No. 104, Building No.14,Paithan Road, Mhada Colony,Nakshtrawadi, Chh SambhajinagarTq. and Dist Chh. Sambhajinagar(husband of sister in law) 5.Rekha w/o Shriniwas KaleAg 31 years, Occ. HouseholdR/o. At post DigrasTq. and Disrict Parbhani (sister in law) 6.Sadhana w/o Amol ShelkeAge 28 years, Occ. HouseholdR/o. Mukundwadi, Chh. SambhajinagarTq. & Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar...Applicants (sister in law) cran4527.24-2- Versus 1.The State of MaharashtraThrough police Inspector Police Station SengaonTq. Sengaon, District Hingoli 2.Swati w/o Ravi Kadam,Age 21 years, Occ. HouseholdR/o. At present C/o. Narayan Suryabhan KambleLimbala Tanda, Tq. SengaonDistrict Hingoli ...Respondents …..Mr. S. S. Jangada, Advocate for the applicantsMs. Rashmi P. Gour, A.P.P. for the respondent No.1Mr. Moin Pasha Shaikh Farid h/f A. L. Kanade, Advocate forrespondent No.2. ….. CORAM:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATED:10th JULY, 2025 O R D E R (PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) :- 1.Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 2.This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) for quashing ofFirst Information Report (for short the “F.I.R.”) No. 325 of 2024registered with Sengaon police Station, Tq. Sengaon, District Hingoli,for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w.34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the I.P.C.”) and theconsequential criminal proceeding bearing R.C.C. No. 2 of 2025 cran4527.24-3- pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sengaon, DistrictHingoli.3.After hearing for some time, when this court showeddisinclination to grant relief to applicant Nos.1 and 2, learnedadvocate for the applicants, on instructions, seeks leave to withdrawthe application of applicant Nos.1 and 2. Leave granted. Theapplication to the extent of applicant Nos.1 and 2 stands dismissedas withdrawn. 4.The informant averred in the report that applicant Nos. 3, 5and 6 are her married sisters in law whereas applicant No.4 ishusband of applicant No.3. 5.The informant averred in the report that she married withthe brother of applicant Nos. 3, 5 and 6 on 20.6.2021. She begot adaughter Rinku. Her husband is serving in the Maharashtra SecurityForce at Mumbai. After the marriage, she started to reside in hermatrimonial home with her parents-in-law. Her husband used tocome from Mumbai intermittently on leave. The applicants and otheraccused persons treated her with cruelty on trivial reasons. Whenshe used to convince them, the applicants and other accused weremaking phone calls to her husband and informing him that she is not cran4527.24-4- doing the house chores properly and used to sleep. When herhusband used to come at Parbhani, he used to beat her and ill-treather physically as well as mentally. The applicants sisters in law werecoming to Parbhani frequently and were misleading other accusedthat the informant is not able to work properly. Therefore, sheinformed about the said cruelty to her parents and she went to herparental house. 6.The informant further averred that on 13.05.2024 she wasat her parental house at Nimbala Tanda, her parents in law camethere for compromise in the matter. They threatened and abused herand told her to do whatever she wants. Thereafter, the informantmade complaint to the Women’s Grievance Redressal Cell, Hingoli.However, the matter could not be settled there and therefore, shelodged the report on 09.08.2024. 7.Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that theapplicants are in no way concerned with the allegations made by theinformant. The applicant Nos. 3, 5 and 6 are married sisters in law ofthe informant whereas the applicant No.4 is husband of applicantNo.3. All the applicants are residing at different places. There arevague and baseless allegations made against the applicants,without quoting the specific role of these applicants. The date and cran4527.24-5- time of allegation of abuses, beating at the instance of the presentapplicants is also not attributed. All allegations are vague andgeneral in nature. There is a delay in lodging the report. From thecharge sheet, it appears that all the witnesses whose statements arerecorded are from the parental side of the informant. The saidstatements of the witnesses cannot prove that the harassment andcruelty has been caused to the informant at the hands of theapplicants. These applicants are close relatives of the husband ofthe informant and therefore, they have been falsely implicated in thecrime without any basis. Therefore, he prayed to quash theproceedings. 8.Learned A.P.P. for respondent No.1 State and learnedadvocate for respondent No.2 strongly opposed the application bysubmitting that the applicants have treated the informant with cruelty.Further on the say of the present applicants, the husband of theinformant used to beat her and demand an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-for purchase of a four wheeler. On account of non fulfillment of thesaid demand, the applicants have treated the informant with cruelty.Though the applicants are residing at different places, they frequentlyused to visit the house of the in laws of the informant and instigatethe co-accused to harass the informant. The specific role bymentioning their names are attributed to the applicants. The cran4527.24-6- applicants cannot be exonerated from the criminal liability underSections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 r.w. 34 of the I.P.C. It is lastlyprayed to reject the application. 9.It would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’bleSupreme court in the case of Kim Wansoo Vs. State of UttarPradesh & Ors., reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 17 , in which theHon’ble Supreme Court, in paras 9 and 11 of the judgment, has heldas under :“9.In State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, this Courtagain held that where an FIR did not disclose the commissionof an offence without anything being added or subtracted fromthe recitals thereof, the said FIR could be quashed.11.In the contextual situation, it is also relevant to refer tothe decision of this Court in Mohammad Wajid and Anotherv. State of U.P. and Anr., whereunder this Court, in so far asit is relevant, held thus :-“34…….. it will not be just enough for the Court tolook into the averments made in the FIR/complaintalone for the purpose of ascertaining whether thenecessary ingredients to constitute the allegedoffence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatiousproceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into manyother attending circumstances emerging from recordof the case over and above the averments and, ifneed be, with due care and circumspection try toread in between the lines. The Court while exercising cran4527.24-7- its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC orArticle 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itselfonly to the stage of a case but is empowered to takeinto account the overall circumstances leading to theinitiation/registration of the case as well as materialscollected in the course of investigation…..”10.We have perused the charge sheet, particularly the report andthe statements of witnesses. The witnesses have stated similar factsas have been stated by the informant. No specific incident is statedas to when the applicants caused cruelty to the informant as statedby the informant in her report. The allegations of demand ofRs.2,00,000/- are not made against the present applicants.Admittedly, applicant Nos. 3, 5 and 6 are married sisters in law of theinformant and applicant No.4 is husband of applicant No.3 and theyare residing at their respective residences i.e. at ChhatrapatiSambhajinagar and Digras. On the basis of general and vagueallegations of cruelty made against the applicants, essentialingredients of Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of the I.P.C.are not establishing against the applicants. There is no medicalevidence of injuries caused to the informant due to the allegedbeating so as to establish essential ingredients of Section 323 of theI.P.C. against these applicants. Therefore, on such vague andgeneral allegations, compelling the applicants to face the trial, wouldbe an abuse of the process of the court. The case is made out for cran4527.24-8- exercise of our powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. We aretherefore, inclined to allow the application, in the interest of justiceand to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, thefollowing order:-O R D E R I.The application stands partly allowed. II.The F.I.R. No. 325 of 2024 registered with Sengaon policeStation, Tq. Sengaon, District Hingoli, for the offencespunishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of theI.P.C. and the consequential criminal proceeding bearingR.C.C. No. 2 of 2025 pending before the Judicial Magistrate,First Class, Sengaon, District Hingoli are quashed and setaside to the extent of applicant Nos.3 to 6. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)rlj/