Rupesh Ramrao Dhonde And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another
2024:BHC-AUG:18807-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2964 OF 2024
1) Rupesh S/o Ramrao Dhonde, Age-31 years, Occu:Private Job, R/o-Adarsh Nagar, Ahmedpur, Taluka-Ahmedpur, District-Latur,
2) Ramrao S/o Gurbasappa Dhonde, Age-65 years, Occu:Nil, R/o-Adarsh Nagar, Ahmedpur, Taluka-Ahmedpur, District-Latur,
3) Surekha W/o Ramrao Dhonde, Age-62 years, Occu:Household, R/o-Adarsh Nagar, Ahmedpur, Taluka-Ahmedpur, District-Latur,
4) Dipika W/o Umakant Guruphale, Age-27 years, Occu:Household, R/o-Garsuli, Taluka-Renapur, District-Latur, ...APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra, Through it's Police Station Officer, Police Station, Ahmedpur, Taluka-Ahmedpur, District-Latur,
2) Sanyukta W/o Rupesh Dhonde, @ Sanyukta D/o Gaurishankar Kalyani, Age-29 years, Occu:Service, R/o-Mahadev Galli, Ahmedpur, Taluka-Ahmedpur, District-Latur.
...RESPONDENTS ...
Mr. Kishor T. Shirurkar Advocate for Applicants. Mr. A.M. Phule, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1.
...
CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.
DATE : 13th AUGUST, 2024 ORDER :
1.
Present Application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the First Information Report (for short "the FIR") vide Crime No. 234 of 2024 registered with Police Station, Ahmedpur, District-Latur for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said FIR came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2. 2.
It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 got married to applicant No.1 on 18th March 2023. Applicant Nos.1 to 3 are resident of Ahmedpur. Applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of applicant No.1 and applicant No.4 is the married sister of applicant No.1.
3.
Respondent No.2 contends that after the marriage, she was treated properly for about 11⁄2 months. Though applicant No.1 is doing job at Pune, they used to come to Ahmedpur. After the period of 11⁄2 months, all the accused persons started harassing her by giving taunting that she is poor and her parents have not given anything at the time of marriage. They were
asking her to bring money from her parents and for that purpose she was assaulted. Though respondent No.2 tried to convince them, yet the husband, under the influence of liquor, used to assault her. Later on the husband started insisting her that she should do job and bring money and then used to raise suspicion over her character. She was forcibly driven out of the house in November 2023. After sitting in the bus stand for a while, she returned to matrimonial home but she was not allowed to come inside the house. Thereafter she went to her parents place. Again in December 2023 along with her relatives she had gone to the house of the accused for the request of cohabitation. Her brother had then fulfilled the demands of the accused and therefore, she was allowed to cohabit and then she was treated properly for some days.
But thereafter, the accused persons again started raising suspicion over her character, started to assault and abuse her and were saying that applicant No.1 would perform second marriage and if she stays in the house, they would cut her hands and legs. The husband forcibly put her in travels bus on 27th February 2024 and sent her to her parents house. Thereafter also from 1st March 2024 to 26th March 2024 there were attempts by her parents for her cohabitation with applicant No.1 but the applicants refused.
4.
Learned Advocate for the applicants submits that the
perusal of the FIR would show that omnibus allegations have been made. It is not stated that how much amount was demanded. Even the married sister residing at Garsuli, TalukaRenapur has been roped in. Since no specific role is attributed, it would be futile exercise to ask the accused persons to face trial. 5.
We do not find that even case is made out for issuing notice to respondent No.2. In fact specific role has been attributed. Twice or thrice, respondent No.2 has been driven out of the house. Though she might not have given the figure of the amount demanded but at present it is only the FIR which is no encyclopedia. She has specifically stated that in November 2023 she was driven out of the house and after waiting at the bus stand for a while when she returned to the house, she was not allowed to enter inside the house by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. There are specific allegations against the husband and therefore, since we are at the inception stage, it will not be appropriate to exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR. 6.
The Application stands rejected.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE asb/AUG24