SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ganesh S/O Bhikanrao Hire And … vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 7 February, 2017

                                   1                                Cri.A-3575-16




                                                                         
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                 
                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3575 OF 2016

     1.       Ganesh Bhikanrao Hire




                                                
              Age : 30 years, Occu. Agril.,
              R/o Bodhegaon BK., Tq. Phulambri
              Dist. Aurangabad

     2.       Shashikalabai Bhikan Hire,




                                       
              Age : 63 years, Occu. Household,
              R/o : As above.
     3.       Nandabai Shashikant Khese,
              Age : 35 years, Occu. Household,
              R/o Kathrad, Tq. Rahata,
                            
              Dist. Ahmednagar.                             ...APPLICANTS

              Versus
      

     1.       The State of Maharashtra
              Through Police Inspector Paithan Police Station,
   



              Aurangabad.

     2.       Yogita Ganesh Hire
              Age : 30 years, Occu. Household.,





              R/o Bodhegaon BK. Tq. Phulambri
              Dist. Aurangabad
              Presently residing at Bhavani Nagar, Paithan,
              Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad.            ...RESPONDENTS

                                   .....





     Mr. S.A. Gaikwad ,Advocate for Applicant
     Mr. D.R. Kale, AGP for Respondent - State
     Mr. R.C. Bora h/f Mr. S.G. Dhumak, Advocate for Respondent
     No.2
                                    ....


                                       CORAM :   S.S. SHINDE AND
                                                 K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

DATED : 7th FEBRUARY, 2017.

::: Uploaded on – 09/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on – 10/02/2017 00:49:34 :::

2 Cri.A-3575-16

JUDGMENT :- ( PER : K. K. Sonawane, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, with

consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. Present application is filed by the applicants under section

482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the First

Information Report (“FIR” for short) bearing crime No. 0181 of

2016 registered with Paithan Police Station, District Aurangabad

for the offences punishable under sections 377, 498A, 323, 504

and 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the applicants

seeks leave to withdraw the present application to the extent of

applicant No. 1-Ganesh Bhikanrao Hire.

4. Leave granted.

5. The application stands dismissed as withdrawn as against

applicant No. 1 – Ganesh Bhikanrao Hire.

6. So far as applicants No. 2 Shashikalabai Bhikan Hire and

(3) Nandabai Shashikant Khese are concerned, learned counsel

appearing for the applicants submits that applicant No. 2 is

mother-in-law whereas applicant No. 3 is sister-in-law of

respondent No. 2 – complainant -Yogita. The applicant No. 3 is

resident of Katharad, Ta. Rahata District Ahmednagar. There are

::: Uploaded on – 09/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on – 10/02/2017 00:49:34 :::
3 Cri.A-3575-16

no specific allegations against them in the FIR. The marriage of

respondent No. 2 was solemnized with applicant No. 1 Ganesh in

the year 2008 and after lapse of period of 8/9 years the

complainant – Yogita filed present complaint. There are general

and vague allegations made in the FIR, which are not

sustainable. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the

applicants submits that the application deserves to be allowed to

the extent of applicants No. 2 and 3.

7. The learned APP appearing for respondent – State and

learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 raised objection

to the contentions put forth on behalf of the applicants No. 2

and 3. According to learned counsel appearing for respondents,

applicant No. 2 being mother in-law and applicant No. 2 being

sister in law of the complainant -Yogita maltreated and harassed

her on account of demand of money. It has been alleged that

when complainant – Yogita was pregnant that time applicant No.

2 Shashikalabai insisted her to do the hard domestic work. It has

been alleged that due to maltreatment there was miscarriage of

the complainant. Hence, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

respondents prays not to nod in favour of the applicants.

8. We have given careful consideration to the submissions

advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, with

their able assistance perused the pleadings in the petition,

::: Uploaded on – 09/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on – 10/02/2017 00:49:35 :::
4 Cri.A-3575-16

grounds taken, annexures thereto, affidavit in-reply filed by

respondent No. 2 and contents of the complaint-FIR. The FIR of

the complainant Yogita demonstrate that there are vague and

omnibus allegations against applicant No.2 Shashikalabai and

applicant N0. 3 Nandabai in regard to maltreatment and

harassment on account of demand of money. It appears from the

FIR that after the marriage the complainant cohabited with the

applicants for short period of nine to ten months and thereafter

she left the matrimonial house and started residing at her parents

house. These circumstances also support the contention

propounded on behalf of the applicants. After the marital discord

there was compromise arrived with elder persons of the family

and applicant No. 2 – Shashikalabai, mother in-law shown

willingness to allow the complainant for cohabitation. But she was

not taken to the matrimonial home by her husband on the some

pretext. If these circumstances are taken into consideration in its

entirety, reflects that the ingredients of the offence of cruelty

would not be attracted to these applicants. The allegations

nurtured on behalf of respondent No. 2 appears vague,

ambiguous and not based on well foundation to prove charges

against these applicants No. 2 and 3. There would not be fruitful

purpose to allow the continuation of proceedings against

applicants No. 2 and 3. It would be an abuse of process of law

and dissipate precious time of court of law. Hence, in view of

attending circumstances, on record, we are of the opinion that

::: Uploaded on – 09/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on – 10/02/2017 00:49:35 :::
5 Cri.A-3575-16

the FIR – complaint as well as subsequent proceeding instituted

upon the FIR bearing crime No. 0181 of 2016 registered with

Paithan Police Station deserves to be quashed to the extent of

applicants No. 2 and 3. In the result, we proceed to pass

following order.

(i) The application is partly allowed in terms of prayer

clause “b” to the extent of applicants, namely, (2)

Shashikalabai Bhikan Hire and (3) Nandabai Shashikant

Khese.

(ii) The FIR bearing Crime No. 0181 of 2016 registered

with Paithan Police Station for the offence punishable under

sections 377, 498A, 323, 504 and 506 read with section 34

of the Indian Penal Code and subsequent proceedings

based upon crime No. 0181 of 2016 to the extent of

applicants, namely, (2) Shashikalabai Bhikan Hire and (3)

Nandabai Shashikant Khese stands quashed and set aside.

(iii) Rule is made absolute only to the extent of applicant

Nos. 2 and 3. No order as to costs.

10. Accordingly the application stands disposed of.

                          Sd/-                                 Sd/-
                [ K. K. SONAWANE, J. ]                [ S.S. SHINDE, J.]

     MTK


    ::: Uploaded on - 09/02/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2017 00:49:35 :::
 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation