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 :::