High Court · 2025

Legal Reasoning

-1- criappln-4604-2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4604 OF 20231.Vimal Hanmantrao ManeAge : 65 Years, Occu. : Household,R/o. At Dakshin Shend, Post Daithana,Tq. Shirur Anantpal, Dist. Latur.2.Janardhan S/o. Hanmantrao ManeAge : 43 Years, Occu. : Agriculture,R/o. At Sumthana, Post Digol,Tq. Shirur Anantpal, Dist. Latur.3.Archana W/o. Janardhan ManeAge : 38 Years, Occu. : Household,R/o. At Sumthana, Post Digol,Tq. Shirur Anantpal, Dist. Latur.4.Shanta W/o. Dilip PatilAge : 50 Years, Occu. : Household,R/o. At Dakshin Shend, Post Daithana,Tq. Shirur Anantpal, Dist. Latur.5.Puja Angad BiradarAge : 42 Years, Occu. : Household,R/o. Flat No.203, 2nd Floor,“Sainik Residency”, Survey No.295/2A,Lohgaon Road, Nimbalkar Nagar,Lohgaon Haveli, Pune. …. ApplicantsVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Ausa Police Station,Dist. Latur. -2- criappln-4604-20232.Ashwini W/o. Laxman ManeAge : 34 Years, Occu. : Household,R/o. Nath Nagar, Ausa,Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur. …. Respondents....Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Rajendra N. ChavanAPP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. S.A. Gaikwad.… CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. RESERVED ON : 04th April 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 09th April 2025 ORDER [PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.] :-1.This is an application for quashing the First InformationReport (for short “the F.I.R.”) and charge-sheet in R.C.C. No.625 of2023, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,Ausa, Dist. Latur, arising out of Crime bearing No.0378 of 2023,registered at Ausa Police Station, Dist. Latur on 05.09.2023, for theoffences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 read with Section34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.2.It is admitted fact that applicant No.1 is mother-in-law,applicant No.2 is brother-in-law, applicant No.3 is sister-in-law (wifeof applicant No.2), applicant No.4 is cousin mother-in-law andapplicant No.5 is married sister-in-law of the informant. -3- criappln-4604-20233.Learned Advocate for the applicants pointed out thereport dated 05.09.2023. The respondent No.2/informant averred inthe report that she married with the son of applicant No.1 on09.06.2008. In her marriage, Rs.1.50 Lakhs as a dowry, two Tolasgolden ornaments and Rs.20,000/- for Shevanti (ceremony) and otherhome appliances, etc. were given.4.The informant further averred that, after marriage, forabout one month, she was treated well. Thereafter, all the applicantsstarted taunting and treating with disrespect to her by abusing. Onsome occasion, the applicants used to beat her. They were keeping heron starvation. She was bearing that cruelty only to continue hermarital tie. She begotten two daughters viz. Dnyaneshwari andMaheshwari and one son viz. Shivprasad. She felt that now theapplicants will treat her well, but her harassment was continued by allthe applicants and her husband. Her mother tried to convince theapplicants and her husband. However, she was insulted and expelledfrom the house. Thereafter, the informant was again harassed byquestioning as to why she stated the fact of cruelty to her mother. Allthe applicants were demanded Rs.5 Lakhs to her for starting newbusiness for her husband and she was expelled from the house. -4- criappln-4604-20235.The informant further averred that, on 11.02.2023, hermother obtained Rs.2 Lakhs as a loan by mortgaging her gold. Shealso took Rs.3 Lakhs from the Bachat Gat and paid that amount to theapplicants. Thereafter, she was treated well for one month. After that,the applicants started to harass her by demanding more money. At thetime of Diwali festival of 2022, the applicants kept those twodaughters with them and expelled her along with her son Shivprasad.Since then, she is residing with her parents.6.The informant further averred that on 11.07.2023, herhusband called her at Yerolmod, Tq. Shirur Anantpal. All theapplicants and her husband came there. They took away sonShivprasad from her and beaten her. She made a complaint to theWomen Counselling Center, Ausa, Dist. Latur, but it went into vein.Thereafter, she lodged the report on 05.09.2023.7.Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that theapplicants are falsely implicated in the crime. All the allegations in thereport and charge-sheet are vague and omnibus. Applicant No.1 is65 years old lady. Applicant No.4 is cousin mother-in-law. ApplicantNo.5 is married sister-in-law, who is residing at Pune. Applicant Nos.2and 3 are residing at Sumthana, Tq. Shirur Anantpal, Dist. Latur. The -5- criappln-4604-2023informant is residing with her husband at Dakshin Shend, PostDaithana, Tq. Shirur Anantpal, Dist. Latur. 8.Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that thealleged incident did not happen as stated by the informant in herreport. Applicant No.2 lodged the report on 31.10.2022 against theinformant for setting ablaze his soyabean crops. The report lodged bythe informant is counter blast to the report lodged by applicant No.2.The essential ingredients of Section 498-A of I.PC. are not attractingto the case in hand. If the applicants are compelled to face the trial, itwould certainly be an abuse process of Court. Lastly, it is prayed toallow the application.9.Learned APP for the State strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that there is a strong evidence of crueltyagainst the applicants. Their names are mentioned in the F.I.R. Theapplicants treated the informant with cruelty by demanding money,abusing her, insulting and by beating her. Thus, they caused physicaland mental cruelty and compelled her to live at parents house. It islastly prayed to reject the application.10.In the context of this case, it would be relevant to referthe decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Wajid and -6- criappln-4604-2023Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another, reported in 2023 SCC OnlineSC 951; 2023 INSC 683, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court heldthus :-“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 482 ofthe 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 tothe initiation/registration of the case as well as thematerials collected in the course of investigation….”11.A reference can be made to the judgment in the case ofCBI vs. Aryan Singh, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 379, in whichthe Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under :-“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.” -7- criappln-4604-202312.In case of Kim Wansoo Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 17, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inpara 9 of the judgment, has held as under :“9.In State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, this Courtagain 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 report and charge-sheet. It appearsthat the report has been lodged on 05.09.2023 and the last incident isstated to be occurred on 11.07.2023, when the informant was beatenand her son was taken away from her at Yerolmod. Learned Advocatefor the applicants pointed out Exhibit-F, which was N.C.R. registeredagainst the informant that she beaten applicant No.1/her mother-in-law. The report is lodged by applicant No.2/brother-in-law against theinformant and two other persons that his soyabean crop was setablaze, worth Rs.4 Lakhs. 14.As per the report lodged by the informant, since theDiwali festival of 2022, she was expelled from the house and allegedincident of beating to applicant No.1/mother-in-law took place on06.11.2022, for which the N.C.R. is registered on the same dayagainst the informant. The incident of alleged setting ablaze of -8- criappln-4604-2023soyabean crop was occurred on 20.10.2022. However, report islodged on 31.10.2022. Reasons of delay are not stated in the reportand charge-sheet. 15.After going through the statements of witnesses, wefound that allegations made by the informant are stated by thewitnesses in their statements. They have stated the incident dated11.07.2023 that the husband of the informant beaten her and tookaway her son and thereafter, report was lodged. The husband has notfiled an application for quashing the report. There are seriousallegations against the applicants. The informant in her report statedthat the applicants and her husband demanded Rs.5 Lakhs to her.From the entire charge-sheet, it is not clarified by the informant in herreport and witnesses in their statements as to when and how theseapplicants came there and demanded Rs.5 Lakhs to her. Theallegations made by her are of general nature and role of each of theapplicants is not specifically stated by the informant and witnesses. 16.The Investigating Officer has not collected the documentsof mortgage of the gold which was kept by the informant’s mother forobtaining loan of Rs.2 lakhs to comply the demand of Rs.5 Lakhs ofthe applicants. The Investigating Officer has also not collected thedocuments of Bachat Gat, from which Rs.3 Lakhs were obtained as an -9- criappln-4604-2023advance/loan and it was paid to the informant or the applicants orher husband.17.Though the allegations of setting ablaze of soyabean cropare made against the informant and her relatives, those cannot beconsidered at this stage. It is a matter of fact and it has to be provedin a separate trial. However, it is crystal clear that the N.C.R. lodgedby applicant No.1 against the informant that she beaten her is prior tolodging of the present F.I.R. It has to be considered with reference tothe date of lodging of this report in question.18.The allegations are made against the husband of theinformant that her son was taken away when she was called atYerolmod on 11.07.2023. So far as the allegation of demand of Rs.5Lakhs is concerned, those are made against the husband and theapplicants. However, it is not establishing that the amount of Rs.5Lakhs was paid by the mother of the informant to any of theapplicant. What was done after payment of that amount is notclarified either from the report and statements of witnesses. Nodocumentary evidence is brought on record with regards to thattransaction to support the informant’s case of cruelty.19.The informant stated in her report that the applicantscaused cruelty by beating her. However, no medical evidence is -10- criappln-4604-2023produced on record to establish that fact. The essential ingredients ofSections 498-A, 323, 504 of I.P.C. are not establishing against theapplicants either from the report or the charge-sheet. In such a factsituation, if the applicants are compelled to face the trial, it wouldcertainly be an abuse of process of Court. We are, therefore, inclinedto exercise our powers under Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 in the interest of justice to prevent the abuse ofprocess of Court by quashing the said report and charge-sheet againstthe applicants. The application deserves to be allowed. Hence, thefollowing order.ORDERI)The application stands allowed.II)The First Information Report and charge-sheet in R.C.C.No.625 of 2023, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ausa, Dist. Latur, arising out of Crime bearing No.0378 of 2023, registered at Ausa Police Station, Dist. Latur on 05.09.2023, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 stands quashed against the applicants. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ] JUDGE[ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGEasd