1 CrAppln 6875 17J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6875 OF 2017
1. Namdeo s/o Hanuman Barle,
Age 45 years, Occ. Agriculture.
2. Satyabhama w/o Namdeo Barle,
Age 43 years, Occ. Housewife.
3. Akshay s/o Namdeo Barle,
Age 19 years, Occ. Education,
All R/o. Shivani, Tq. Lonar,
District Buldhana.
4. Jayshri w/o Anil Shivayeet,
Age 23 years, Occ. Housewife,
R/o. Korwadi, Tq. Jintur, Dist.
Parbhani.
5. Shivaji s/o Hanuman Barle,
Age 52 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Shivani, Tq. Lonar,
District Buldhana.
6. Baban @ Lahu s/o Shriram Panune,
Age 42 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Gandhari, Tq. Lonar, Dist.
Buldhana.
7. Sarubai w/o Shriram Panune,
Age 42 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Gandhari, Tq. Lonar, Dist.
Buldhana.
8. Rital d/o Baban alias Lahu Panune,
Age 19 years, Occ. Education,
R/o. Gandhari, Tq. Lonar, Dist.
Buldhana.
1/4
::: Uploaded on – 02/07/2018 04/07/2018 00:57:38 :::
2 CrAppln 6875 17J
9. Sagar alias Gangasagar w/o Dnyaneshwar
Dhangad, Age 47 years, Occ. Housewife,
R/o. Gandhari, Tq. Lonar, Dist. Buldhana.
10. Ravi s/o Dnyaneshwar Dhangad,
Age 28 years, occ. Service Health
Department, R/o. Gandhari Tq. Lonar,
Dist. Buldhana. … Applicants
(Ori. accused)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra.
Through Police Inspector,
Police Station, Bamni Tq.
Jintur, Dist. Parbhani.
2. Parvati w/o Suresh Barle,
Age 47 years, Occ. Housewife,
R/o. Shivani Tq. Lonar, Dist.
Buldhana. … Respondents
(Respondent No. 2 is
original informant)
…
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Ashok D. Raut.
APP for respondent No. 1/State : Mr. P.G. Borade.
Advocate for Respondent No. 2 (appointed) : Mr. Ravi M. Mhaske.
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE : 27th June, 2018.
JUDGMENT ( PER K.L. WADANE, J.) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the
parties, this application is taken up for final disposal.
2. This application is filed by the applicants under the provisions of
section 482 of the Code Criminal Procedure for relief of quashing of first
2/4
::: Uploaded on – 02/07/2018 04/07/2018 00:57:38 :::
3 CrAppln 6875 17J
information report No. 30/2017 dated 07.04.2017, registered with Bamani
police station, District Parbhani, for the offences punishable under section
498A, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Complainant Parvati Suresh Batle lodged complaint to the police
station Bamani, District Parbhani, on 07.04.2017, alleging that she is married
lady having son namely Vikas, aged about 21 years and daughter namely
Santoshi aged about 23 years. The marriage of her son Vikas is arranged and
settled with a girl from the relative of complainant namely Pratibha.
Thereupon all these accused persons were illtreating mentally and physically
to the complainant on the ground that why she is not settling the marriage of
her son with a girl of their relative.
4. On perusal of the entire allegations in the first information report
it appears that no where it is mentioned in the first information report that
how the applicants are related to the complainant. It is also not clear that
whether they are in-laws of the complainant or otherwise.
5. The ground for alleged illtreatment is that the marriage of the
son of complainant was arranged and settled with a girl from the relative of
the complainant and complainant is not ready to settle the marriage of her son
with a girl from the family of applicants/accused persons. The allegations
made in the first information report are absolutely vague in material
particulars.
3/4
::: Uploaded on – 02/07/2018 04/07/2018 00:57:38 :::
4 CrAppln 6875 17J
6. The offence is registered against the applicants under the
provisions of section 498A of the Indian Penal Code coupled with other
offences. While registration of the crime the investigating officer or the
police officer has not understood the provisions of section 498A and has
blindly registered the offence under section 498A read with section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and that too without application of mind. How the
applicants are related to the husband of the complainant has not been
clarified, therefore, it is very difficult even prima-facie to infer that the
present applicants are in-laws or relatives of husband. Therefore, criminal
proceeding on such a vague allegations cannot be allowed to be continued. In
view of the above, following order is passed.
ORDER
1 The application is allowed.
2 Relief is granted in terms of prayer clause ‘B’.
3 Fees of appointed counsel is quantified to Rs. 3000/- (Rs.
Three Thousand only).
7. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
8 Criminal Application is disposed of.
(K. L. WADANE, J.) (T.V.NALAWADE, J.)
mkd
4/4
::: Uploaded on – 02/07/2018 04/07/2018 00:57:38 :::