Jyotibai W/O Yuvraj Choudhari And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

2024:BHC-AUG:22716-DB {1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3915 OF 2023 1) Jyotibai w/o. Yuvraj Choudhari, (Sister-in-law) Age 48 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Plot No. 74, Dandvate Nagar, Shirpur, Taluka Shirpur, District Dhule.

2) Alkabai w/o Santosh Choudhari, (Sister-in-law) Age 43 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Plot No. 55, Karvand Road, Shirpur, Sant Sena Colony , At Post Shirpur, Taluka Shirpur, District Dhule.

3] Parmeshwar S/o. Rawan Thorat, (Maternal uncle) Age 56 years, Occ. Service, R/o. B-5, Sahyog Society, Refinery Road, Gorwa, Vadodara 390 016 (Gujarat).

....Applicants

VERSUS

1, The State of Maharashtra though the police Station Officer, Shahada Police station, Dist. Nandurbar.

2.

Sheetal Vijay Choudhari, Age 36 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Maloni, Tq. Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar.

.....Respondents .....

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. SHIRSAT SUHAS R h/f. Mr. D.M. BHALKE. APP for Respondents: Mr. A.R. KALE.

Advocate for respondent NO.2 : MR. AMIT SAVALE. CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.

DATE : 19th SEPTEMBER, 2024.

{2} P.C. :- 1.

Present application has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR vide crime No. 431 of 2023 dated 18.7.2023 registered with Shahada Police Station, Dist. Nandurbar for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC 2.

Heard Mr. Shirsath for the applicant and Mr. Amit Salve for respondent No.2.

3.

Learned advocate for the applicants vehemently submits that perusal of the FIR would show that only omnibus allegations have been made against the applicants, who are married sisters in law and maternal uncle of husband of respondent NO.2. They are residing at a different place than the matrimonial home of respondent No.2. Further, main allegations appear to be against husband, parents in law and therefore, it would be unjust to ask the applicants to face trial. 4.

Per contra, learned APP and learned advocate for respondent NO.2 strongly oppose the application and submit that there are allegations and therefore, let the matter be investigated and applicants to face trial.

5.

As per the FIR the marriage had taken place on 2.5.2007 between respondent No.2 and Vijay Chaudhari. On the date of FIR dated 18.7.2023 they are blessed with two daughters aged 15 and 8. Thus, respondent No.2 appears to have given instances of alleged harassment since 2 to 3 months after marriage till 24.4.2022 and another incident dated 18.4.2023. The entire FIR would show that as regards present

{3} applicants, who are married sisters in law and maternal uncle of the husband, omnibus allegations have been made and, therefore, we take this to be a fit case, where we can exercise our powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Hence, we allow the application in terms of prayer clause (B).

[S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J] grt/-