High Court · 2025

Legal Reasoning

appln-4969-2024.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4969 OF 20241.Ajit Ganpat LenkarAge: 49 years, Occu.: Business,R/o. Plot No.301, Shashikala Mansion Bungalow, Bhabanagar,Anant Elvation Nashik,Tq. And Dist. Nashik.2.Shashikala Ganpat LenkarAge: 70 years, Occu.: Business,R/o. Plot No.301, Shashikala MansionBungalow, Bhabanagar, AnantElevation Nashik, Tq. And Dist. Nashik.3.Sandip Ganpat LenkarAge: 51 years, Occu.: Business,R/o. Plot No.301, Shashikala MansionBangalow, Bhabanagar, Anant ElevationNashik, Tq. And Dist. Nashik.. ApplicantsVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Shrirampur Taluka Police Station, Tq. Shrirampur,District Ahmednagar.2.Komal Ajit Lenkar,Age: 31 years, Occu.: Household,R/o. Taklibhan, Tq. Shrirampur,Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Respondents…Mr. Rahul A. Tambe, Advocate for the applicants.Mrs. Rashmi P. Gour, APP for respondent No.1/State.Mr. Ajit B. Kale, Advocate i/b Ms. Sakshi A. Kale, Advocate for respondent No.2....[1] appln-4969-2024.odt CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. RESERVED ON : 18 JUNE 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 21 JULY 2025ORDER (Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.) :-.Present application has been filed for quashing the proceedings inRegular Criminal Case No.290 of 2024 pending before the learnedJudicial Magistrate First Class, Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar arisingout of the FIR vide Crime No.386 of 2023 registered with ShrirampurTaluka Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the offences punishableunder Sections 498-A, 406, 342, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 ofIndian Penal Code.2.Heard learned Advocate Mr. Rahul A. Tambe for the applicants,learned APP Mrs. Rashmi P. Gour for respondent No.1/State andlearned Advocate Mr. A. B. Kale instructed by learned Advocate Ms.Sakshi A. Kale for respondent No.2.3.Learned Advocate for the applicants has vehemently submittedthat the FIR is nothing but the act of vengeance. The marriage betweenapplicant No.1 and respondent No.2 was performed on 10.06.2019 andas per her own say she was treated properly for about 5-6 months. Thenshe says that the husband started harassing her by making demand ofRs.20,00,000/- as he had suffered loss in his construction business. She[2] appln-4969-2024.odtstates that she was left with her parents within six months. She had thenfiled petition for restitution of conjugal rights on 22.01.2021 before theNewasa Court. As per the order of the Court dated 14.12.2022, shewent for cohabitation at Nashik, still it is her contention that applicantNo.1 started saying that she should bring the amount and she has beenbrought only because of the order of the Court. She then states thatapplicant No.1 had not disclosed about his first marriage and having sonaged 12 at the time of the marriage. Still she then says that she wascohabiting somehow with applicant No.1. This alleged non disclosureground for the first time has pretended after 2022 is false because in hernotices dated 30.11.2020 and 07.01.2021, there is specific mentionabout applicant No.1’s divorce with his first wife. It is then stated that atNashik, applicant No.1 was raising doubts over her chastity and he wasintentionally behaving in such a way which would raise question over thecharacter. It is then stated that for 2½ months somehow she cohabited,but around 10.00 p.m. on 27.02.2023 it is alleged that she was assaultedby the husband by making demand of Rs.20,00,000/- and the otherapplicants had abused and threatened her. They took away herornaments. She informed the said fact to her father. Her father hadtaken help of Mumbai Naka Police Police Station, Nashik at 5.00 a.m. on28.02.2023 and brought her back to his home. There is a statement ofone Rajendra Bhikaji Nakode, Police Constable of Mumbai Naka Police[3] appln-4969-2024.odtStation, Nashik, wherein he states that as per the call given, he went tothe house of the applicants. He made inquiry with applicant No.1 as towhere his wife is. It was told that his wife and himself are the only twopersons residing in the house and his wife is sleeping in the bedroom onthe upper floor. They woke the informant and made inquiry with herwhereupon she told before him that after the dinner, there was disputebetween herself and her husband on the count of dinner. At that time,she was assaulted and slapped by the husband, then she took threebags with her, lodged N.C.R. No.193 of 2023 for the offences punishableunder Sections 323, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code. The applicant hadthe chance to give the entire details and lodge an offence under Section498-A and 406 of Indian Penal Code also, however, she has not donethat. This shows that she wanted to harass the applicants. The otherwitnesses are the parents and relatives. As regards the ornaments areconcerned, there are documents of the applicants also which wouldshow that the ornaments worth more than Rs.1,00,000/- were purchasedby applicant No.2 on the occasion of the marriage of the son. Whenunnecessarily the applicants have been roped in, it would be the fit casewhere the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedureare required to be exercised.4.Per contra, the learned APP as well as learned Advocate forrespondent No.2 strongly opposed the application and submitted that the[4] appln-4969-2024.odtentire evidence that has been collected would show that the informantwas harassed on the count of demand of Rs.20,00,000/- and in spite ofthe decree, yet she was not given honourable treatment. She hadlodged the report with Mumbai Naka Police Station, Nashik about theincident that had taken place on 27.02.2023, but it cannot be the hurdlefor her to lodge a detailed report after she came in safe environment i.e.with her parents.5.At the outset, we would say that if we consider the entire FIR, theallegations against the mother-in-law and brother-in-law are omnibus. Itis not stated in specific words that the said demand of Rs.20,00,000/-prior to the decree of restitution of conjugal rights was on behalf ofapplicant Nos.2 and 3 also. Of course, there is room to believe that thereason as regards non disclosure of the earlier marriage and the sonborn out of the first marriage appears to be wrong and false, becausethe notices those were issued are on record, which contain about herknowledge about the earlier marriage of applicant No.1. So also, in herHindu Marriage Petition No.12 of 2021 filed on 22.01.2021, she hadmentioned about the first marriage of applicant No.1, still shecompromised the matter and the dispute with applicant No.1 and thecompromise pursis was seen and verified by the concerned Court on14.12.2022. It was then stated that she would be staying with thehusband and there is a specific stipulation that she will not insist for[5] appln-4969-2024.odtresiding in the house of applicant No.2. Now, she cannot go away fromthose terms which were verified before the competent Court. She has infact suppressed the terms of settlement in her FIR. She has not statedthat in spite of such terms, term No.2 was not adhered to. That means,after 14.12.2022, applicant Nos.2 and 3 were not residing with applicantNo.1 and respondent No.2. This can be said to be supported by thestatement of Police Head Constable Rajendra Nakode, who had gone tothe house on 27/28.02.2023 and had found that applicant No.1 andrespondent No.2 were only persons in the house. Certainly, it appearsthat their names have been taken with mala fide intention. 6.Another fact to be noted is that the informant alleges that herornaments worth Rs.10,30,000/- were taken by the accused persons.The evidence on record would indicate that if applicant Nos.2 and 3 werenot residing with applicant No.1 and respondent No.2, then question ofapplicant Nos.2 and 3 taking away the ornaments does not arise. In theFIR, she has specifically stated that those ornaments were taken in theintervening night of 27.02.2023 and 28.02.2023. At no point of time evenin her Hindu Marriage Petition she has stated that her ornaments havebeen taken away or she had given it to applicant No.2 in any mannerand applicant No.2 has not returned them. The terms of settlement doesnot make a mention about such ornaments. For proving an offenceunder Section 406 of Indian Penal Code is concerned ‘entrustment’ is[6] appln-4969-2024.odtrequired to be shown and that basic ingredient is missing. The otherSections are non cognizable and, therefore, definitely, case is made outfor exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure in favour of applicant Nos.2 and 3, as it would be abuse ofprocess of law to ask them to face the trial. 7.However, there appears to be some element i.e. prima facieallegations against applicant No.1 and, therefore, we are not inclined togrant the relief in favour of applicant No.1. Hence, the following order :-ORDERI)Criminal Application stands partly allowed.II)Criminal Application stands rejected in respect of applicantNo.1 - Ajit Ganpat Lenkar.III)Criminal Application Stands allowed in respect of applicantNos.2 and 3.IV)The proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.290 of 2024pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar arising out of the FIR vide CrimeNo.386 of 2023 registered with Shrirampur Taluka Police Station,District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Sections[7] appln-4969-2024.odt498-A, 406, 342, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IndianPenal Code, stands quashed and set aside as against applicantNos.2 - Shashikala Ganpat Lenkar and applicant No.3 - SandipGanpat Lenkar.[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGEJUDGEscm[8]