Girish Haribhau Shilavne & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Mr.Vikas Kolekar with Ms.Komal Shirgire and Mr.Rohit Kamble for the Applicants. Ms.P.N.Dabholkar, APP for Respondent No.1, State. Ms.Swati C. Raul for Respondent No.2, appointed through Legal Aid Service. ... CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 16th JANUARY, 2025 P.C. :-

We have heard the submissions of the learned Advocates for the Applicants and Respondent No.2. The learned APP has assisted us.

We have perused the charge-sheet and the documents before us.

The Complainant is the wife of Petitioner No.1. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are her parents-in-law. Petitioner No.4 is a 1 of 4 Trupti 21-APL-87-2024.odt married sister-in-law, who was married much prior to the marriage of Petitioner No.1 and the Complainant.

It is undisputed that the marriage between these two is the third marriage for the husband and the second marriage for the Complainant.

We have perused the First Information Report (FIR) wherein the Complainant has made a serious grievance, repeatedly, as against the husband and the parents-in-law in relation to demands for dowry. According to the Complainant, these three have made life difficult and painful for her. The husband used to physically assault the Complainant. He and the parents-in-law were consistently demanding dowry, a car and further demanded that the immovable properties standing in the name of the mother of the Complainant, be transferred in the name of her mother-in-law. It is stated in the FIR that she was patient with these atrocious acts for quite some time and finally when the situation became unbearable, she has approached the Police Station and had lodged the FIR.

Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme 2 of 4 Trupti 21-APL-87-2024.odt Court in Naresh Aneja alias Naresh Kumar Aneja Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Another1; Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh etc.2; and State of Odisha Versus Pratima Mohanty and Others3, the legal position is settled that it is not for this Court to consider the probative value of evidence and hold a mini trial while considering an Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. If the FIR makes out an offence against these three Petitioners, the Court should not be indulgent.

As such, this Criminal Application is dismissed as against Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

Insofar as Petitioner No.4 is concerned, she was married years ago and resides in her marital home at Pune. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 reside at Khopoli Bazar Peth, Taluka Khalapur, District Raigad. In the FIR, though attributes are made towards Petitioner No.4, it is stated therein by the Complainant that she does not even know the full name of the sister-in-law. This indicates that there must have hardly been any contact between the sister-in-law and the Complainant.