High Court
Legal Reasoning
cran4031.23-5- concubine is a relative of the husband within the meaning of Section498-A of I.P.C., since they were not connected by blood or marriageto the husband. The same view has been reiterated by the Hon’bleSupreme Court in the case of Sunita Jha vs State of Jharkhandand another, 2010 (10) SCC 190 as well as this Court in the case ofDeepika Hanmant Zanjurne vs. State of Maharashtra, throughthe Police Inspector and another, 2021 SCC Online Bom 6852.9.It would also be proper and relevant to refer to the provisionsof Section 498-A of I.P.C. reads as under:-“498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a womansubjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband orthe relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such womanto cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a termwhich may extend to three years and shall also be liable tofine. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely todrive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury ordanger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) ofthe woman; or(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is witha view to coercing her or any person related to her to meetany unlawful demand for any property or valuable security oris on account of failure by her or any person related to her to cran4031.23-6- meet such demand.”10.We have perused the report, which is crystal clear thatapplicant is not a relative of the husband of the informant. Section498A of I.P.C. as extracted herein-above, is very specific that onlythe husband or his relative can be prosecuted for subjecting the wifewith cruelty. The clear meaning of cruelty is given in the said section.The question as to who would be a relative of the husband for thepurpose of Section 498A has been considered in detail in the case ofU. Suvetha vs. State by Inspector of Police and Anr, (supra). Weare in agreement with the views expressed in the aforesaid caselaws.11.Considering the peculiar set of the facts of the case and forthe aforesaid reasons, the applicant cannot be compelled to face thetrial, as she is not a relative of the husband of the informant. If theapplicant is compelled to face the trial, it would certainly be an abuseof process of the court. Therefore, it is necessary to invoke ourinherent powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of thereport against the applicant in the interest of justice to prevent theabuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, we are inclined toallow the application partly. Hence, we pass the following order:- cran4031.23-7- O R D E R ICriminal application is partly allowed. IIThe application of applicant No.1 is dismissed aswithdrawn. IIIThe F.I.R. vide C.R. No. 332 of 2023, registered withPundliknagar police station, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,for the offences punishable under sections 323, 498-A,504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. is quashed to the extent ofapplicant No.2. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)rlj/
Arguments
cran4031.23-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4031 OF 20231. Shrikant Dilip GhadgeAge: 39 years, Occu: ServiceR/o: 203, Pride Jupiter, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Upnagar, Nashik-422006.2. Ankita Sudhakar BhadaneAge: 24 years, Occu: Service,R/o: Bungalow No.5, Indraprastha Colony, Nashik-422006....Applicants Versus1. The State of Maharashtra through Pundlik Nagar Police Station Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad)2. Seema Shrikant Ghadge Age 38 years, Occu: Service, R/o: 203, Pride Jupiter, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Upnagar, Nashik-422006....Respondents …..Ms. Aishwarya Takale h/f Mr. Yogesh M. Patil and Mr. A.J. Pawar,Advocates for the applicantsMr. S.A. Gaikwad, A.P.P. for the respondent No.1Mr. Akash Ingale, advocate for respondent No.2. ….. CORAM:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATED:3rd APRIL, 2025 O R D E R (PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) :- 1.By this appication, filed under section 482 of the Code of cran4031.23-2- Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”), the applicant No. 2 isseeking quashment of First Inforation Report (for short “F.I.R.”) videC.R. No. 332 of 2023, registered with Pundliknagar police station,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, for the offences punishable underSections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of Indian Penal Code (forshort “I.P.C.”)2.After hearing learned advocate for the applicants, when thisCourt expressed disinclination to grant relief to applicant No.1,learned advocate for the applicants, on instructions, seeks leave towithdraw the application of applicant No.1. Leave granted. 3.The informant-respondent No.2 averred in the report that shemarried with Shrikant Dilip Ghadge on 8.2.2011. After marriage, shewent for cohabitation with her husband at Nashik. She begotten twochildren. Her marital life was happily going on alongwith her husbandand in-laws for 10 years. Thereafter, on 26.01.2021 she noticedchanges in the behavior of her husband. He was not paying moneyfor routine expenses. He was quarreling with her on simple reason.He was doubting her character. He abused and beat her. 4.The informant further averred in the report that when sheenquired in the office of her husband, about her husband’s cran4031.23-3- behaviour, she came to know that applicant, who is serving in theoffice of her husband, is having illicit relations with her husband.When she came to know about that illicit relationship, her husbandstarted to say that he does not like her, she should not stay with himand he will maintain his children. He wanted to marry with theapplicant. The applicant used to come to her house and used toabuse and say that she wanted to marry with the husband ofinformant. She was insisting the informant to take divorce. Thehusband of the informant threatened her that he will set her ablaze.The husband of the informant expelled her from the house.Therefore, she came to reside with her parents at Shivajinagar,Aurangabad and lodged the report.5.Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicantis not relative of the informant. The applicant has not performedmarriage with the husband of the informant. Therefore, section 498-A of I.P.C. cannot be invoked against her. The applicant is a thirdperson and she is not relative of the co-accused. In the F.I.R. thereare no allegations that present applicant Ankita has extendedbeatings to respondent No.2, at any point of time. 6. Learned A.P.P. for respondent State submitted that theapplicant herein is causing interference in the marital life of the cran4031.23-4- informant. The applicant has instigated co-accused Shrikant andfurther, on one occasion, the applicant went to the house of thehusband of informant and instigated him to harass the informant.Learned A.P.P. therefore prayed to reject the application.7.Learned advocate for respondent No.2 submitted that there areillicit relations between the husband of the informant and theapplicant. On that count, the husband of the informant used to abuseand ill-treat the informant by saying that he does not like her, she donot stay with him and he will maintain his children. He wanted tomarry with the applicant. The applicant used to come to the houseof the informant and used to abuse and say to her that she wanted tomarry with the husband of informant. She was insisting her to takedivorce. Even at the instance of the applicant, the husband of theinformant threatened her that he will set her ablaze. Lastly thehusband of the informant expelled her from the house, she lodgedthe report. Learned advocate for respondent No.2 prayed to rejectthe application. 8.Here, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment of theHon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U. Suvetha vs. State byInspector of Police and Anr, 2009 (6) SCC 757; in which theHon’ble Supreme Court has held that neither a girl friend nor a