SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jayashri W/O. Akash Gaikwad vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 10 August, 2018

1 CrAppln 1694 18J



Jayshri w/o Akash Gaikwad,
Age 34 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Flat No. 404, Onyx Building,
Yogidham, Kalyan (W), Tq. Kalyan,
Dist. Thane. … Applicant
(Ori. Accused No. 2)

1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Investing Officer,
Tofkhana Police Station,
Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar.

2. Priyanka w/o Pravin Khochare,
Age 26 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. D-40, PramdaN, HUDCO,
Savedi Road, Ahmednagar,
Tq. Dist. Ahmednagar. … Respondents
(Respondent No. 2 is
original informant)

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. N.B. Narwade.
APP for respondent No. 1/State : Mr. S.J. Salgare.
Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. S.S. Jadhav.


DATE : 10th AUGUST, 2018.


1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the

parties, this application is taken up for final disposal.


::: Uploaded on – 21/08/2018 21/08/2018 23:50:45 :::

2 CrAppln 1694 18J

2. This application is filed under the provisions of section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure for relief of quashing of first information

report No. I-301/2018, dated 11.06.2018 registered with Tofkhana police

station, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under

section 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Complainant Priyanka Pravin Khochare lodged complaint

against the applicants alleging that she performed marriage with Pravin

Khochare on 27.02.2016. In the marriage her father spent Rs. 20 to 25 lakh

and gave 30-32 tolas gold. The complainant went for cohabitation and just

from third day of cohabitation, the family members were started illtreating

her mentally by saying that her father did not give a bullet in the marriage.

On 04.03.2016 the husband of complainant Pravin told her that since last 2

to 3 years he has love affair with applicant and if she is ready to accept the

relationship, he will cohabit with the complainant. The complainant ignored

the fact and cohabited with her husband. On 28.03.2016 father-in-law,

mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and husband of complainant abused and

assaulted the complainant on account of demand of Rs. 1,50,000/- for

purchasing bullet and drove her out. Due to which the father of complainant

gave Rs. 1,50,000/- to the husband of complainant but thereafter also they

illtreated the complainant.

4. It is further alleged by the complainant that by using her

husband’s phone applicant threatened the complainant. When complainant

::: Uploaded on – 21/08/2018 21/08/2018 23:50:45 :::
3 CrAppln 1694 18J
told about the said fact to her father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and

sister-in-law they assaulted her and also threatened to kill. On 30.10.2016 at

the time of Laxmipujan father-in-law, mother-in-law brother-in-law and

husband of complainant demanded Rs. 5 lakh for purchasing flat. On that

count they assaulted her and left her to the house of her maternal uncle. With

these allegations, offence came to be registered against the applicants/accused

for the offences punishable under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with

section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Narwade, learned counsel

for the applicants, Mr. Salgare, learned APP for the respondent No.1/State

and Mr. Jadhav, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

6. On plain reading of the first information report it appears that

there are no specific allegations against the applicant about causing

illtreatment or assault to the complainant. It is also to be noted that the

applicant is not a relative of accused No. 1 Pravin (husband). The offence

under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code can be attracted only against the

husband or the relatives of the husband. In the present case the applicant is

stated to be a lover of accused No. 1. So, applicant does not come within the

definition of relative of husband. Therefore, the offence punishable under

section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted against her. On

perusal of the first information report it also appears that there are no specific


::: Uploaded on – 21/08/2018 21/08/2018 23:50:45 :::
4 CrAppln 1694 18J
allegations of assault, or abuses against the applicant. So also the other

offences are not attracted against the applicant.

7. In view of the above, the application is therefore liable to be

allowed. Hence, following order is passed.


1. Application is allowed. Relief is granted in terms of prayer

clause ‘B’.

2. Rule made absolute in those terms.

8. Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly.




::: Uploaded on – 21/08/2018 21/08/2018 23:50:45 :::

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.


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