Raju Ranuji More And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another
2024:BHC-AUG:17632-DB -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1154 OF 2022 1.
Raju S/o Ranuji More (Husband) Aged : 42 years, Occupation: Labour, Residence at Bhaiyyasaheb Chawl, Road No. 16, Ambika Nagar, No.2 Wagale Estate, Thane (W).
2.
Ganesh S/o Kashinath Sharnagat (Brother-in-law), Aged: 52 years, Occupation: Labour, Residence at Siddharth Chawl, Road No. 16, Ambika Nagar, No.2 Wagale Estate, Thane (W).
3.
Malhan W/o Ganesh Sharanagat (Sister-in-law) Aged: 48 years, Occupation: Household, Residence at Siddharth Chawl, Road No. 16, Ambika Nagar, No.2 Wagale Estate, Thane (W).
4.
Suresh S/o Ramesh More (Nephew of Applicant No.1), Aged: 38 years, Occupation: Labour, Residence at Bhaiyyasaheb Chawl, Road No. 16, Ambika Nagar, No.2 Wagale Estate, Thane (W).
... Applicants
Versus
1.
The State of Maharashtra, Through the Police Inspector, Police Station Majalgaon (Rural), District Beed.
2.
Satvashila W/o Raju More (Informant-wife) Aged: 38 years, Occupation Household, Residing at Kalyan Nagar, Tq. Majalgaon, District Beed.
... Respondents
-2- .....
Mr. Arun S. Shejwal, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. S. V. Hange, APP for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Rupesh Hake, Advocate for Respondent No.2 [appointed] .....
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.
DATED :
07 AUGUST 2024 PER COURT :- 1.
By instant application, there are prayers for invoking powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing crime no. 10 of 2020 registered at Majalgaon (Rural) Police Station, District Beed and the consequential proceeding culminating in to chargesheet vide RCC No. 398 of 2020 for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC].
2.
Inviting attention of this court to the FIR, learned counsel for applicants would submit that there is apparently false implication. It is pointed out that marriage of informant/respondent no. 2 with present applicant no.1 dated 29.03.1998 is not disputed. However, it is submitted that, allegations as regards to suspicion of character by husband, beating, ill-treatment are false and afterthought and merely with intention to harass the husband as well as family members. It is pointed out that apparently complaint is full of vague and omnibus allegations. Entire family is tried to be roped in i.e. without quoting
-3role or specifying the instances of ill-treatment at their hands. Applicant nos. 2 and 3, who are brother-in-law and sister-in-law, have no concern with the matrimonial discord between husband and wife. Likewise it is submitted that, nephew of applicant no.1 is also falsely implicated. That, there are no specific allegations against applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4. That, when there is no material against them, making them face trial would impart injustice on them. For all above reasons, prayers are sought to be granted.
3.
While opposing the application, learned counsel for respondent no.2 as well as learned APP submitted that barely after two weeks or so after marriage, there was suspicion of character by husband. That, husband disowned baby born out of cohabitation. There are allegations of demand of Rs.2,00,000/- for purchasing car and for its non-fulfillment, there was both, physical and mental cruelty. Therefore according to them, when offence under Section 498-A as well as 323 of IPC squarely gets attracted, proceedings cannot be quashed and they need to face trial.
4.
It seems that by order dated 11.04.2022, this Court issued notice only as against applicant nos. 2 to 4 and as such, proceedings against applicant no.1 need not be considered.
-45.
Perused the FIR dated 10.01.2020. Informant, after giving her relations with applicants, reported that after two weeks, husband started suspecting character and abused and beat her. She has alleged that he also disowned the girl child delivered by her. It is also informed that husband alleged that if she has to cohabit, then she has to bring Rs.2,00,000/- from parents and brother and on such count, there was said to be physical and mental cruelty. That, allegations regarding solitary incidence of 26.02.2013 naming present applicant nos. 2 to 4 for abuse, beating and for being driven out are levelled. Apparently, such allegations are vague and general in the sense as, who amongst the above did what, has not been clarified. Similar allegations are reported against all regarding incidence taking place in August 2019 i.e. after almost 6 years of the initial incidence. It seems that after proceedings before Women's Grievance Redressal Cell failed, FIR is lodged on 10.01.2020.
6.
It is discerned and deduced from above report that primary allegations are against husband. But, present proceedings do not survive against him, he having withdrawn. Applying the principles laid down in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604 and considering the general, vague and omnibus allegations
-5against applicant nos. 2 to 4, and also the object and ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC as enumerated in Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 5 SCC 177, relief as against them deserves to be granted to prevent them from facing judicial proceedings in absence of any quality material. Hence, the following order is passed :
ORDER
I.
The application of applicant nos. 2 to 4 stands allowed. II.
The FIR No. 10 of 2020 dated 10.01.2020 registered with Majalgaon (Rural) Police Station, District Beed for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of IPC and the proceedings in R.C.C. No. 398 of 2020 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Majalgaon, District Beed are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of applicant nos. 2 to 4. III. Fees of the learned Advocate appointed to represent the cause of respondent no.2 is quantified at Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] vre