High Court

Legal Reasoning

1criappln No.4308-2023IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4308 OF 20231.Devendra S/o. Kishor Tayade,Age : 36 Years, Occu. : Service,R/o. Wankhede Society, Dikshitwadi,Tq. Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. At Present R/o. D-2, Shrikrushna Park,Manewadi, Rajalwadi Road, Sillod,Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad.2.Savita @ Kishor Tayade,Age : 53 Years, Occu. : Household,R/o. Wankhede Society, Dikshitwadi,Tq. Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 3.Kishor S/o. Chudaman Tayade,Age : 63 Years, Occu. : Agri.,R/o. Wankhede Society, Dikshitwadi,Tq. Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 4.Pankaj S/o. Kishor Tayade,Age : 34 Years, Occu. : Service,R/o. Wankhede Society, Dikshitwadi,Tq. Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. …. ApplicantsVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Station,Jilha Peth Police Station, Jalgaon.2.Radhika W/o. Devendra Tayade,Age : 32 Years, Occu. : Household,R/o. Vivekanand Nagar, Behind Sub-Jail,Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon.R/o. Wankhede Society, Dikshitwadi,Tq. Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. …. Respondents 2criappln No.4308-2023....Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Datta A. MadakeAPP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. S.A. GaikwadAdvocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. S.V. Suryawanshi.…CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.Dated : 09th June 2025ORDER [PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.] :-1.Heard learned Advocate for both the sides as well aslearned APP 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.335 of2023, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (forshort “the Cr.P.C.”), pending before the learned Chief JudicialMagistrate First Class, Jalgaon, arising out of Crime bearing No.0435of 2022, registered with Jilha Peth Police Station, Dist. Jalgaon, dated12.06.2022, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323,504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (forshort “the I.P.C.”)3.After hearing both the sides, when this Court expresseddisinclination to grant any relief to applicant Nos.1 to 3, learned 3criappln No.4308-2023Advocate for the applicants sought withdrawal of the application tothe extent of applicant Nos.1 to 3. Therefore, this application isdismissed as withdrawn against applicant Nos.1 to 3. 4.Learned Advocate for the applicants pointed out thereport dated 12.06.2022, in which respondent No.2/informantaverred that she married with the brother of applicant No.4 on07.07.2011. Her husband was a teacher and he used to bring the girlstudents and talk with them on the terrace for hours together. Whenshe was opposing him for the said act, he was abusing her in filthylanguage, beating her and used to throw household articles here andthere. He used to beat her with any article that was in his hands. Hewas not allowing her to go to her parents house and to talk with herparents. He frequently came under the influence of liquor anddoubted her character. He, under the influence of liquor, used toexpel her from the house. He was telling her that "I will leave you, Ihave illicit relationships with a woman, you don't suit me, I want toperform second marriage, do what you want to do and proceed toyour parents house".5.The informant further averred in her report thatapplicant No.4 along with others demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs to her to start 4criappln No.4308-2023a private tuitons. On 04.11.2021, after the Lakshmi Poojan was over,she said to her husband that her brother's birthday is to be celebrated,therefore, she wants to go to her parents house. On that count, hethrew the plate of meal to her person. He said that "you are havingillicit relationships with others". That time, her mother-in-law tookout five grams gold chain, one tola gold ear ring, three grams ringand silver waist chain from her person. 6.The informant further averred in her report that herornament box, which was kept before the god, was picked up byapplicant No.4. Her parents-in-law caught hold of her hands and shewas taken out of the house at about 10.00 p.m. She sat in front of thehouse for entire night. She requested them to take her in the house.In the morning, her husband left her to her parents house and hewent to Balapur, Sillod. 7.The informant further averred in her report that, after 15days, she made a phone call to her husband to fetch her back. Hedemanded money and said that "first fulfill the demand, then I willfetch back you". She agreed. Therefore, her husband came to her on24.01.2022 at about 07.00 p.m. On the second day, they both startedto proceed to her marital home. While en route at Fardapur, her 5criappln No.4308-2023mother-in-law made phone call to her husband. Thereafter, he askedher as to where has she kept Rs.5 Lakhs, which was brought from herparents house and demanded it to be given to him. She replied thather parents' financial condition is poor, so she did not fetch thatamount. That time, her husband took her out of the car on FardapurRoad and started to beat her there. By-passers were gathered andthey tried to convince her husband. Sarpanch of Fardapur alsoconvinced her husband, but he did not listen. Therefore, Sarpanchcalled the police and told him to leave her to her parents house. 8.The informant further averred in her report that, on18.05.2022, a meeting of the Charmakar Samaj was arranged. In saidmeeting, her husband said that he will not cohabit with her, she islunatic and then he left the meeting. Her husband was not respondingto her phone call. Therefore, she made an application to WomenGrievance Redressal Cell at Jalgaon. However, her husband refused toallow her to cohabit with him. Thereafter, she lodged the report. 9.Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted thatapplicant No.4 is falsely implicated in the crime. General and vagueallegations are made against this applicant. Though some specificincidents of cruelty are stated by the informant in the report and by 6criappln No.4308-2023the witnesses in their statements, the fact of cruelty is not establishingfrom the entire charge-sheet against this applicant. The falseallegation of demand of Rs.5 Lakhs is made against this applicant.The essential ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. are not establishing against this applicant. Ifhe is compelled to face the trial, it would certainly be an abuse ofprocess of Court. It is lastly prayed to allow the application.10.Learned APP for the State strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that there is a strong evidence of crueltyagainst applicant No.4. His name is mentioned in the F.I.R. Theapplicant treated the informant with cruelty by demanding moneyand caused physical and mental cruelty and compelled her to resideto her parents house. It is lastly prayed to reject the application.11.Learned Advocate for respondent No.2/informant alsostrongly opposed the application and submitted that the applicant isinvolved in the crime of treating the informant with cruelty bydemanding money. The specific incidents are stated by the informantin the report that this applicant demanded Rs.5 Lakhs for starting aprivate class. The name of the applicant is mentioned in the F.I.R.There are statements of witnesses corroborating with the version of 7criappln No.4308-2023the informant. There is a strong evidence against this applicant toproceed further with the trial. Therefore, the application deserves tobe rejected as there is a reliable evidence against the applicant toestablish the requisites of offences punishable under Sections 498-A,323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. He prayed to reject the application.12.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 482of 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 to 8criappln No.4308-2023the 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.13.We have perused the charge-sheet, particularly the reportand statements of witnesses. The witnesses have stated similar factsas stated by the informant in her report. There is allegation againstapplicant No.4 that he picked up the ornament box, which were takenaway by parents-in-law of the informant. No any specific incident is 9criappln No.4308-2023stated by the informant as to when he demanded Rs.5 Lakhs to herfor starting a private tuitions. General and vague allegations are madeagainst the applicant. The role of this applicant is not spelt out as towhat way he treated the informant with cruelty by demandingRs.5 Lakhs on specific point of time. The informant was residing withher husband and not with applicant No.4. Merely because the nameof applicant No.4 is mentioned in the report, proceeding against himis not justifiable.14.Considering all the aspects and above reasons and lawlaid down in the authorities of Mohammad Wajid, CBI Vs. AryanSingh and Kim Wansoo (Supra), if applicant No.4 is compelled to facethe trial, it would certainly be an abuse of process of Court. We are,therefore, inclined to exercise our powers under Section 482 of theCr.P.C. to quash the report and charge-sheet in the interest of justiceto prevent the abuse of process of Court against applicant No.4. Theapplication deserves to be partly allowed. Hence, the following orderis passed.ORDERI)The application is dismissed as withdrawn against applicant Nos.1 to 3. 10criappln No.4308-2023II)The application stands allowed to the extent of applicant No.4.III)The First Information Report and charge-sheet in R.C.C.No.335 of 2023, pending before the learned ChiefJudicial Magistrate First Class, Jalgaon, arising out ofCrime bearing No.0435 of 2022, registered with JilhaPeth Police Station, Dist. Jalgaon, dated 12.06.2022, forthe offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323,504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 stands quashed against applicant No.4. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ] JUDGE[ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGEasd