High Court

Legal Reasoning

1APPLN.4503.2023.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4503 OF 20231.Asha w/o Satish KhadeAge: 39 years, Occ: Teacher, R/o: Laxmi Nagar, Mandave, Satara, District Satara.(Sister-in-law) 2.Satish s/o Hanmant KhadeAge: 43 years, Occ: Teacher, R/o: Laxmi Nagar, Mandave, Satara, District Satara.(Brother-in-law) 3.Suman w/o Nilkanth BhangeAge: 61 years, Occ: Household, R/o: Mahadev Galli, Murshadpur,Ashti, Taluka Ashti District Beed. At Present, Tuljai Chowk, Shivaji Nagar Beed, District Beed (Mother-in-law).… ApplicantsVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Beed. 2.X Y Z.… Respondents...Mr. Swapnil Joshi, i/b J. P. Legal Associates, Advocate for Applicants.Mr. G. A. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent No.1 / State.Ms. Pratiksha Kale, h/f Mr. Vishal Kadam, Advocate for Respondent No.2....CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE :15th July, 2025. 2APPLN.4503.2023.odtO R D E R: (Per Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.)1Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 2Present application has been filed under Section 482 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) initiallyfor quashment of the FIR bearing Crime No.533 of 2023, dated 5thOctober, 2023, registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, DistrictBeed, for the offences punishable under Sections 377, 323, 504 and506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”) andunder Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication ofHuman Sacrifice and other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices andBlack Magic Act, 2013, and later on by way of amendment, forquashment of the consequential charge-sheet. 3When this Court expressed disinclination to grant relief ofquashment of report as well as the charge-sheet to applicant No.3, thelearned counsel for the applicants, on instructions, seeks leave towithdraw her application. Leave is granted. 4Respondent No.2 being a woman and the offence is underSection 377 of IPC, we would like to mask her name. 3APPLN.4503.2023.odt5Applicant No.1 is the sister-in-law of the informant /respondent No.2. Applicant No.2 is the husband of applicant No.1.6Respondent No.2 / informant averred in the report that hermarriage was solemnized with co-accused – Mahesh Nilkanth Bhangeon 10th July, 2015, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Initially, shestarted to reside in a joint family alongwith her husband and theparents-in-law. Her parents-in-law used to forcibly administer to hercertain herbal medicines with an intention that she should notconceive. The said herbs (vine) were reportedly grown within theircompound of the residence. The informant told that fact to herhusband on several occasions, however, he neglected her and told herthat he had no interest in living with her, as her father had not givenhim anything, and that he wished to marry someone else. She toldthat fact to her parents. They arranged for her treatment withDr.Gholve. After nearly six years of marriage, the informant gave birthto a son. Despite this, her husband, alongwith her parents-in-lawcontinued to harass her on trifling ground. She lodged a complaintagainst her husband, parents-in-law and two sisters-in-law, includingapplicant Nos.1 and 2 at the Women’s Grievance Redressal Cell.There, compromise took place. The husband and his family gave awritten assurance that she would be treated well. Therefore, the 4APPLN.4503.2023.odtinformant resumed cohabitation. After a brief period, her husbandstarted to assault her and her parents-in-law continued theirharassment. 7The informant further averred that her husband andparents-in-law used to conduct rituals at their residence allegedly toobtain treasure trove. For this purpose, they called Baba / Maharaj toperform certain rituals involving lemons, chillies, salt, turmeric, blackdolls etc. She was told by them that as she is the eldest daughter-in-law, it was mandatory for her to participate in these rituals. When sherefused, they beat her and forcibly made her sit for the ritual. Duringthese ceremonies, lemons and chillies were waved around her body.Due to the fear from these rituals, the informant fell ill. She was alsothreatened that if she discloses the rituals to anyone, the treasuretrove would not be found. 8The informant further averred that fed up with thecontinued harassment, the informant repeatedly requested herhusband to separate from the joint family. Eventually, on 3rd January,2023, the informant, her husband, and their child started to resideseparately. After about a month, her in-laws came to her and insistedthat she attend another ritual at their residence. She refused, afterwhich her husband and in-laws assaulted her. 5APPLN.4503.2023.odt9The informant further averred that on 16th September,2023, applicant Nos.1 and 2 visited her residence and told her to bearand tolerate all sufferings for two more months, after which they wouldreceive treasure trove worth seven Hande i.e. pots of gold and thatshe would live like a Queen thereafter. The informant declined theirproposal and told them that she only wanted to live peacefully.Thereafter, both applicants stayed at the residence of her in-laws fortwo days and went back. 10The informant further averred that on 2nd October, 2023,her husband informed her that he was going out of town for businessand preparations for rituals and left the house. He returned on 4thOctober, 2023 at about 05:00 am. On that day, between 09:00 am to11:00 am, her father-in-law visited her and insisted to accompany himto his house for the ritual. Upon her refusal, he started to abuse her.Her husband, who was asleep, woke up. He also insisted that sheshall participate in the ritual. When she again refused, her husbandslapped her and beat her with kicks and fist blows. Thereafter, bothher husband and father-in-law tied her hands behind her back, gaggedher mouth, and dragged her into the bedroom. There, they forcibly laidher face down on the bed, pulled her gown up, and her husbandcommitted forcible anal intercourse upon her against her will. He took 6APPLN.4503.2023.odtbite below her right elbow. When she resisted, her husband slappedher on her back and buttocks. Thereafter, her father-in-law committedsimilar acts of forcible anal intercourse. When she opposed, hethreatened to kill her minor son. Thereafter, her father-in-law left thehouse. Her husband then untied her and threatened her not todisclose the incident to anyone. Thereafter, he left the house. Theinformant then made phone call to her mother and narrated the entireincident. However, before she could do anything further, her husbandreturned and beat her again, snatched her mobile handset and tookaway their child. After some time, her mother arrived. Approximatelyhalf an hour later, her husband returned. Her mother confronted himregarding the incident, but he gave evasive answers. Thereafter, theinformant and her mother proceeded by rickshaw to the Women’sGrievance Redressal Centre at the S.P. Office. However, thedesignated officer was on leave. The in-charge duty officer presentthere noted down her name and address and instructed her husbandto return the child, which he did. Thereafter, the informant,accompanied by her father approached the police station and lodgedthe report. 11The learned counsel for the applicants submitted thatapplicant Nos.1 and 2 are falsely implicated in the crime. There is nocogent and acceptable evidence against them. Vague and general 7APPLN.4503.2023.odtallegations are made against them. If applicant Nos.1 and 2 arecompelled to face the trial, it would be an abuse of the process of theCourt. He lastly prayed to allow the application. 12The learned APP for the State strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that applicant Nos.1 and 2 are involved in aserious crime. Their names are mentioned in the report with their role.He lastly prayed to reject the application. 13The learned counsel for the informant / respondent No.2also strongly opposed the application. She submitted that the namesof applicant Nos.1 and 2 are mentioned in the report. They areinvolved in a serious crime. They committed an anti-social crime.There is strong material against them. She lastly prayed to reject theapplication. 14Here, it is relevant to refer to the decision of theHonourable Supreme Court in Mohammad Wajid and Another Vs.State of U.P. and Another, reported in, 2023 SCC Online SC 951;2023 INSC 683, whereunder the Honourable Supreme Court heldthus:-“34.……. it will not be just enough for the Court to look intothe averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the 8APPLN.4503.2023.odtpurpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients toconstitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. Infrivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty tolook into many other attending circumstances emerging fromthe record of the case over and above the averments and, ifneed be, with due care and circumspection try to read inbetween the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdictionunder Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of theConstitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a casebut is empowered to take into account the overallcircumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the caseas well as the materials collected in the course ofinvestigation....”15We have perused the charge-sheet, particularly, the reportand the statements of witnesses. The witnesses have stated similarfacts as stated by the informant in the report. 16The application of applicant No.3 mother-in-law iswithdrawn. Section 377 of the IPC is invoked against the husband andfather-in-law of the informant. They are not party to this application. 17There are allegations of cruelty in the report. Theinvestigating officer has not invoked Section 498-A of the IPC.However, while framing charge, the Trial Court may frame chargeunder Section 498-A of the IPC. Therefore, while deciding this 9APPLN.4503.2023.odtapplication, we are deciding whether cruelty is caused by applicantNos.1 and 2 or not.18Admittedly, applicant Nos.1 and 2 are residing at LaxmiNagar, Taluka Mandave, District Satara. Both are teachers byprofession. There are allegations against them that they treated theinformant with cruelty and forced her for performing the rituals forgaining treasure trove.19The informant in her report stated that initially her parents-in-law and the husband were compelling her to perform rituals and theBaba and Maharaj were called for that purpose. Their names are notdisclosed by the informant. It is further alleged that applicant Nos.1and 2 visited her residence on 16th September, 2023 and told her tobear all the sufferings for securing treasure trove. But these are vagueand general allegations made against them. It is not brought on recordthat on 16th September, 2023, applicant Nos.1 and 2 came there toharass her from Satara and they were on leave on that day. The leaverecord of applicant Nos.1 and 2 is not collected by the investigatingofficer. Further, the so-called Baba or Maharaj are not made accused.This shows that vague allegations are made against applicant Nos.1and 2. Thus, the essential ingredients of the Black Magic Act i.e. eviland aghori practices on the part of applicant Nos.1 and 2 by instigating 10APPLN.4503.2023.odtare not establishing from the entire charge-sheet. The material placedon record in this regard is not sufficient to establish Black Magic andtherefore, it is not justifiable to apply Section 3 of the Black Magic Act,2013 against applicant Nos.1 and 2. 20To establish cruelty as contemplated under Section 498-Aof the IPC, it is necessary to establish its essential ingredients asdefined in it that there was a demand for money or dowry, or crueltythat drives the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury ordanger to her life, limb, or mental or physical health. There is no suchmaterial on record to show the overt act of applicant Nos.1 and 2 toestablish cruelty caused by them. 21It is not case of informant that applicant Nos.1 and 2caused any injury voluntarily to the informant. There is no material toshow that applicant Nos.1 and 2 intentionally insulted her with intent toprovoke breach of the peace and caused criminal intimidation to theinformant. The essential ingredients of Sections 323, 504 and 506 ofthe IPC are not establishing against them.22Considering entire charge-sheet, the essential ingredientsof Sections 377, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and Section 3 of theMaharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other 11APPLN.4503.2023.odtInhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013, are notestablished against applicant Nos.1 and 2. 23Considering the general and vague allegations madeagainst applicant Nos.1 and 2 and the law laid down in the case ofMohammad Wajid and Another (supra) as well as reasons statedabove, it would certainly be an abuse of the process of the Court, ifapplicant Nos.1 and 2 are directed to face the trial. We are, therefore,inclined to allow the application to the extent of applicant Nos.1 and 2,by exercising our inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. inthe interest of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of theCourt. The application, therefore, deserves to be partly allowed.Hence, the following order:-O R D E RI.The application is partly allowed.II.The application of applicant No.3 stands dismissed aswithdrawn.III.The application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (C)and (C-1) to the extent of present applicant Nos.1 and 2only. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]nga