High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 criappln4544.23 judgment.docxIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4544 OF 20231.Ravsaheb s/o Bhaurao GordeAge : 60 years, Occupation : Agricultural,Resident of Akhegaon, Taluka Shevgaon,District : Ahmednagar. (Father in law of Complainant)2.Vidya w/o Ravsaheb GordeAge : 46 years, Occupation :Housewife,Resident of Akhegaon, Taluka Shevgaon,District : Ahmednagar. (Mother in law of Complainant)3.Bhimabai wd/o Bhaurao Gorde,Age : 88 years, Occupation : Nil,Resident of Akhegaon, Taluka Shevgaon,District : Ahmednagar. (Grand Mother in law of Complainant)4.Ganesh s/o Ravsaheb GordeAge : 33 years, Occupation : Service,Resident of C-902, Nana Spaces,Near basket bridge, Ravet (Brother of husband)5.Archana w/o Ganesh GordeAge; 28 years, Occupation : Housewife,Resident of C-902, Nana Spaces,Near basket bridge Ravet (Wife of brother in law)...APPLICANTS V E R S U S
Legal Reasoning
2 criappln4544.23 judgment.docx1.State of Maharashtra2.Pravita w/o Bharat Gorde,Age; 28 years, Occ; Housewife,Through : Ramchandra Tukaram ZinjurdeResident of At post Akhegaon,Taluka Shevgaon, District; Ahmednagar....RESPONDENTS Advocate for the Applicants : Mrs. Savita P. Kakade (Matkar)A.G.P. for the Respondents/State : Mr.N.R. DayamaAdvocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Pradeep B. Salunke CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 13.12.2024JUDGMENT : [PER : SHRI ROHIT W.JOSHI, J] 1.The present application is filed under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the applicants praying forquashing of the First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as“the FIR” for brevity) against them, vide Crime No. 1026 of 2020registered with Shevgaon Police Station, District Ahmednagar andcriminal proceeding bearing RCC No. 04 of 2021, pending againstthem, on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shevgaon,District Ahmednagar for the offence punishable under Sections498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 3 criappln4544.23 judgment.docx(hereinafter referred to as “the IPC” for brevity). As per the contentsof the FIR, the marriage of respondent No. 2/informant wassolemnized with accused Bharat, some where in the year 2016 at aplace named as Alandi Devachi. After marriage, the couple residedat Baramati. Major allegations in the FIR are against Bharat,husband of respondent No. 2. It transpires from the FIR thatrespondent No. 2 and her husband did not reside with presentapplicants. More importantly the marriage was a love marriage, inwhich the applicants or their other family members and relativesdid not participate. So far as the applicants are concerned, theallegations against them are that the husband of respondent No. 2informed her that applicants were annoyed with him because hemarried with respondent No. 2 without getting any amount towardsdowry. Respondent No. 2 has alleged that her husband had alsodeserted her. Respondent No. 2 has alleged that on 08.04.2017 herhusband went out of the house and did not return back till date inthe evening. Therefore, she went to the house of applicant No. 1 inorder to make inquiries about the whereabouts of her husband.She alleges that applicant No. 1 did not diverse in details aboutwhereabouts of his son i.e. husband of respondent No. 2, ratherabused her stating that she did not bring any dowry along with her. 4 criappln4544.23 judgment.docxThis followed another allegations which pertains to 13.10.2018.She claims that on 13.10.2018 she had been to her in-laws i.e.applicants along with her parents, maternal uncle and otherrelatives, in order to hold talks for resolving the issue betweenherself and her husband. She alleges that all the applicants statedthat unless a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- was brought by father ofrespondent No. 2 they will not allow respondent No. 2 to reside inthe matrimonial house and further that they have beatenrespondent No. 2 in front of her family members and relatives.2.Heard learned Advocate Mrs. Kakade (Matkar), forapplicants, Mr. Dayama, learned APP for Respondent No. 1 Stateand learned Advocate Mr. Salunke, for respondent No. 2.3.We have perused the FIR, statements of witnesses, othermaterial and the charge-sheet with able assistance of learnedAdvocates and learned APP.4.On perusal of the entire material and rival submissions,we are of the opinion that criminal prosecution against presentapplicants needs to be quashed. It is un-disputed that the marriage 5 criappln4544.23 judgment.docxbetween respondent No. 2 and her husband Bharat was a lovemarriage, which was solemnized without participation or evenknowledge of the present applicants. Respondent No. 2 and herhusband resided separate from the applicants ever since the date ofmarriage. The allegations regarding the demand of dowry andharassment are made against the husband. It is also apparentfrom the record that the husband has deserted the respondent No.2. In the back drop of these facts the allegation is made in the FIRabout the incident dated 13.10.2018. The allegation is that theapplicants did not agree for allowing respondent No. 2 to live withthem in her matrimonial house unless she brought a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- from her father. This demand is allegedly in thepresence of parents, maternal uncles and few other relatives ofrespondent No. 2. It is also alleged that the present applicants haveverbally abused and beaten up respondent No. 2 on 13.10.2018.Surprisingly the FIR and other statements are absolutely silent, asto what steps did taken by respondent No. 2 and other relativesaccompanying her, took in order to prevent the physical assault onher. It is not even stated that they had intervened to stop theassault. It is unbelievable that the applicants would verbally abuseand beat up respondent No. 2 in the presence of her family 6 criappln4544.23 judgment.docxmembers and relatives and that too all of a sudden on 13.10.2018,when respondent No. 2 had been to the house of applicants alongwith her family members.5.It will be pertinent to mention here that the incident ofalleged demand of dowry, verbal abuse and beating is stated to bedated 13.10.2018 and the FIR is lodged on 02.11.2020. The delayof 25 months in lodging FIR speaks for itself. Delay by itself cannotbe a ground for quashing the FIR, however, the said aspect of delayneeds to be viewed in the peculiar facts of the present case thatwhen respondent No. 2 married, in that discreet ceremony theapplicants or their other family members and the relatives did notparticipate, the couple never resided with the applicants and all ofsudden it is alleged that on 13.10.2018 respondent No. 2 visited thehouse of applicants along with her family members, where thedemand of dowry was made and she was abused and beaten up. 6.We are convinced that the implication of the applicantsin this matter is with malafide intent and to pressurize the husbandinto resolving the matrimonial discord. The FIR against theapplicants is clearly frivolous and vexatious. 7 criappln4544.23 judgment.docx7.The allegations in the FIR are improbable andunbelievable. The allegations need to be viewed withcircumspection, in the back drop of trend that is evolved forimplicating the names of all the family members under Section 498-A in case of matrimonial disputes.8.The Honourable Supreme Court has held in the matterof Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.reported in 2024 SCC Online 127, that the instances of vexatiousand frivolous complaints, the High Courts entertaining applicationsunder Section 482, must read the allegations carefully andminutely and reading between the lines is essential to prevent theabuse of process of law. It is held that the contents of the FIRshould be viewed in the backdrop of facts of each case. Theseobservations have been made by the Honourable Supreme Courtnoticing a spurt of cases under Section 498-A, wherein all thefamily members are unnecessarily involved with a view to settlescore against the husband. Similar views have been expressed bythe Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of Preety Gupta andAnother v. State of Zharkhand and Anaother reported in 2010 (7)SCC 667, G.V. Rao v. L.H.V.Prasad and Others reported in 2000 (3) 8 criappln4544.23 judgment.docxSCC 693.9.Having regard to the totality of circumstances, weconclude that the continuation of the prosecution against theapplicants will amount to abuse of process of law, since there is nomaterial to suggest their involvement in the offence and as such,the prosecution against them needs to be quashed. We, therefore,pass the following order :ORDER(i)The Criminal Application stands allowed.(ii) The First Information Report bearing Crime No.1026 of 2020, registered with Shevgaon PoliceStation, District Ahmednagar, for the offencepunishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code andcriminal proceeding bearing RCC No. 04 of 2021,pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate FirstClass, Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar, are herebyquashed against applicants Ravsaheb s/o BhauraoGorde, Vidya w/o Ravsaheb Gorde, Bhimabai wd/oBhaurao Gorde, Ganesh s/o Ravsaheb Gorde andArchana w/o Ganesh Gorde, ( ROHIT W. JOSHI ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ) JUDGEJUDGEmahajansb/