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 The application stands dismissed as withdrawn as against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 :::