High Court
Legal Reasoning
*1* appln4498o23IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4498 OF 20231.Sumanbai Sakharam Dipake,age: 68 yrs, Occu.: Housewife. R/o Santuk Pimpri, Taluka and District Hingoli (Mother-in-law)2.Sanjay Ashru More,age 45 years, Occu. Service. (Husband of Sister-in-law)3.Sarika Sanjay More,age 35 yrs., Occu. Housewife, (Sister-in-law) Applicant No.2 & 3 both R/o Shikrapur, Taluka Shirur, District Pune.4.Shilpa Mohan Lokhande,age 32 yrs., Occu. Housewife (Sister-in-law)5.Mohan Devrao Lokhande,age 42 years, Occu. Service. (Husband of Sister-in-law) Applicant No.4 & 5 both R/o Near Deshmukh Hotel, Ashirwad Nagar, Parbhani.6. Swati Sakharam Dipake,age 30 years, Occu. Housewife, R/o Shikrapur, Taluka Shirur, District Pune. (Sister-in-law)...APPLICANTS- VERSUS -
Legal Reasoning
*2* appln4498o231.The State of Maharashtra.Through the PI, Nanalpeth Police Station, District Parbhani.2.Shital Suyog Dipake,age 34 yrs., Occu. Service (Police), R/o Santuk Pimpri, Taluka and District Hingoli.At present R/o Mahatma Gandhi Nagar, Dhar Road, Parbhani. ...RESPONDENTS…Shri Joslyn A. Menezes, Advocate for the applicants.Shri N.R. Dayama, APP for respondent No.1/ State.Shri P.S. Jadhav, Advocate h/f Shri Vijay P. Latange, Advocatefor respondent No.2.… CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI& SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ.DATE : 25 AUGUST 2025ORDER ( Per Sushil M. Ghodeswar, J.) :- 1.Heard the learned advocate Shri Joslyn A. Menezesfor the applicants, the learned Shri N.R. Dayama APP forrespondent No.1/ State and the learned advocate Shri P.S. Jadhav,Advocate h/f Shri Vijay P. Latange, Advocate for respondentNo.2/ informant. *3* appln4498o232.The applicants have approached this Court underSection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging theFIR bearing Crime No.435/2023 registered with the NanalpethPolice Station, Parbhani, for the offences punishable underSections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IndianPenal Code. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer also filed thecharge-sheet bearing No.444/2023 on 19.11.2023 in theproceedings registered as RCC No.171/2024 pending on the fileof the learned JMFC, Parbhani. The applicants vide subsequentamendment, also challenged the aforesaid charge-sheet and RCCNo.171/2024, the proceedings pending before the learned JMFC,Parbhani.3.Respondent No.2/ informant has filed the FIR on19.10.2023 against the applicants. As per the said complaint, itcame to be stated that she married to one Suyog s/o SakharamDipake on 23.07.2008 at Parbhani. Out of the said wedlock, sheis having one son aged about 11 years. Initially, her in-lawstreated her properly, however, later on, they started harassing heron trivial issues. Respondent No.2 came to be appointed in policeforce in the year 2010 and, therefore, she along with her husband *4* appln4498o23came to reside at Parbhani. The informant also stated that her in-laws are having agricultural land admeasuring upto 17 and halfacres.It is further stated in the report that on 01.01.2016,her husband Suyog expired in road accident and since then, thereare property disputes with in-laws. Thereafter, her father-in-law,namely, Sakharam also expired on 27.01.2022. The informantstated that after the death of her father-in-law, all the applicantsherein, have started giving her troubles and used to tell her thatshe has no rights over the properties belonging to her father-in-law. They used to tell her that since she is having job, therefore,she is not entitled for any share in the agricultural property.When she used to claim the share on the behalf of her son, it isalleged that the applicants used to abuse her and also used to slapher. They used to harass her physically and mentally. They alsoused to threaten her and abuse her. The informant, therefore, filedthe complaint to the (Mahila Cell) Women Counselling Centreagainst the applicants. Since the applicants/accused did notappear on any date before the said Women Counselling Centre,and as there was no compromise between them, therefore, she *5* appln4498o23lodged the report.4.We heard Shri Joslyn A. Menezes learned Counselfor the applicants. He submitted that the allegations made in theabove complaint are so absurd and improbable that there is noground for to proceed against the applicants/ accused. Hesubmitted that the criminal proceedings have been launched withmalafide intention and with a view to spite them due to privateand personal grudge. The learned advocate would further submitthat the allegations are uncontroverted and same do not disclosecommission of any offence against the applicants. He, therefore,prayed for quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet and criminalproceedings thereof.5.Per contra, the learned APP Shri N.R. Dayama onbehalf of respondent No.1/State as well as the learned advocatefor respondent No.2/ informant have strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that no grounds are available forquashing the charge-sheet. According to them, on the basis of thematerial collected by investigation officer, the applicants areliable to face the trial. 6.We have carefully examined the report dated *6* appln4498o2319.10.2023 lodged by respondent No.2 and the final report filedby the Investigation Officer. The report filed by respondent No.2nowhere attributes any specific role to any of the applicantaccused. The allegations are thus vague and of general nature.The alleged so-called harassment stated to have started after thedeath of the husband and father-in-law of the respondent No.2and that too over the property dispute. The respondent No.2 isemployed in police department since 2010 and her husbandunfortunately died in road accident in the year 2016. Thereafter,her father-in-law also expired in 2022. Due to the propertydispute with the applicants, respondent No.2 initially approachedto the Women Counseling Centre (Mahila Cell), however, sinceno accused applicants appeared, the report, therefore, came to beregistered against the applicants for the offences punishableunder Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of theIndian Penal Code.7.It is well settled principle laid down in cases toonumerous to mention, that if the FIR does not disclose thecommission of an offence, this Court would be justified inquashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of *7* appln4498o23law. We have examined whether, there is prima facie materialagainst the applicants so that they would be directed to undergothe trial. However, even after minute scrutiny, we did not findany such material against the applicants. The applicants’ casedoes fall within the circumstances indicated by the HonourableSupreme Court in paragraph No.102 of its judgment in State ofHaryana vs. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335. Therefore, weare persuaded to exercise the powers under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure to prevent further abuse of processof court and for the substantial justice to the applicants.Consequently, the Criminal Application is allowed in terms ofprayer clauses B and B1, which read as under:-“B.That the FIR bearing Cr.No.435 of 2023 lodgedwith the Nanalpeth Police Station, Parbhani forthe offences punishable U/Sec. 498-A, 323,504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IndianPenal Code may kindly be quashed and setaside;”“B1.The Chargesheet bearing No.444 of 2023 dated19.11.2023 in FIR bearing Cr.No.435 of 2023dated 19.10.2023 registered with NanalpethPolice Station for offences punishable U/Sec.498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code and subsequentproceedings i.e. Regular Criminal Case(R.C.C.) No.171/2024 pending on the file ofLd. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parbhani, *8* appln4498o23may kindly quashed and set aside;”8.The Criminal Application is disposed of in the aboveterms. kps (SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.) (SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)