SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vinayak Haribhau Tupe And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra And … on 23 July, 2018

1 CrAppln 1452 14J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1452 OF 2014

1) Vinayak Haribhau Tupe,
Age 56 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Mahalunge (Ingale) Chakan,
Tq. Khed ( Rajgurunagar) Dist. Pune.

2) Sarang Sonaba Kiwale, Age 26
years, Occ. Student, R/o. Mahalunge
(Ingale) Chakan, Tq. Khed
(Rajgurunagar) Dist. Pune. … Applicants
(Ori. accused No. 5 to 4)
VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra.
Through Police Station Shrigonda,
Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar.

2. Dr. Sau. Vidya w/o Satish Borude,
Age 29 years, Occ. Business,
R/o. C/o. Kailas Ahilaji Bhalsing,
Plot No. 372, Sector No. 18,
Shivtej Nagar, Chikhali Pradhikaran,
Pimpri Chinchwad, Dist. Pune. … Respondents.
(respondent No. 2 is original
complainant)

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Nangare P.R.
APP for respondent No. 1/State : Mr. P.V. Diggikar.
Advocate for respondent No. 2 : Mr. N.C. Garud.

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE
K. L. WADANE, JJ.

DATE : 23rd JULY, 2018.

1/6

::: Uploaded on – 24/07/2018 25/07/2018 01:40:27 :::
2 CrAppln 1452 14J

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 hearing.

2. This is an application filed the applicants/original accused

No. 5 and 4 under the provisions of section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure for relief of setting aside and quashing the proceeding bearing

RTC No. 91/2014 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Ahmednagar. arising out of first information report Crime No. I-78/2013

registered with Shrigonda Police Station, Distrtict Ahmednagar, for the

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

section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:

(i) The applicant No. 1 (original accused No. 5 ) is the

maternal uncle of original accused No. 1 Satish (husband of

complainant), applicant No. 2 (original accused No. 4) is the maternal

cousin of accused No. 1.

(ii) Respondent No. 2/original complainant lodged complaint by

alleging that, her marriage performed with accused No. 1 Dr. Satish on

6.5.2010. After marriage accused No. 1 to 3 treated her well for one and

2/6

::: Uploaded on – 24/07/2018 25/07/2018 01:40:27 :::
3 CrAppln 1452 14J

half month and thereafter sent the complainant and accused No. 1 at

Pune for doing business/job. The complainant and accused No. 1

started residing at Chikhali in the house of complainant’s father. It is

further alleged by the complainant that her father gave them a house at

Shivtej Nagar, where they were residing. At that time accused No. 1 by

suspecting on the character of complainant started beating and abusing

her. Accused No. 2 and 3 demanded Rs. 3 lakh to the parents of

complainant for making hospital. It is alleged by the complainant that

on 30.04.2011, the applicants and other accused persons drove her out of

the house. However, after giving understanding by the maternal uncle

and parents of the complainant to the accused persons, complainant

again started to residing with the accused No. 1. But again accused No.

1 to 3 demanded Rs. 20 lakh for hospital and on that count they

assaulted, illtreated the complainant. Accused No. 1 also gave threats

and abuses on phone to the complainant and her parents. With these

allegations, offence came to be registered against the applicants and

other accused persons for the offences punishable under section 498-A,

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

4. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Nangare P.R., learned

counsel for the applicants, Mrs. Diggikar, learned APP for the

3/6

::: Uploaded on – 24/07/2018 25/07/2018 01:40:27 :::
4 CrAppln 1452 14J

respondent No.1/State and Mr. Garud, learned counsel for respondent

No. 2.

5. On perusal of the contents of the first information report it

appears that specific allegations of illtreatment, demand of money and

harassment are made against husband/original accused No. 1 and

accused No. 2 and 3. The allegations against the applicants are vague

and general in nature. On perusal of record it appears that the

applicant No. 1 is maternal uncle of accused No. 1 Satish and the

applicant No. 2 is the cousin brother (maternal) of accused No. 1. Both

the applicants are residing at different places. They are distant relatives

of the accused No. 1. Therefore, prima-facie it appears that, the

applicants have no concern with the family matters of the complainant

and accused No. 1. It is alleged that the applicants and other accused

persons drove out the complainant out of the house. However, from the

record it appears that the applicants are not residing with the family of

accused No. 1. Therefore, prima-facie it appears that there is no force in

the allegations of the complainant against the present applicants.

6. On perusal of record it also appears that, earlier also the

complainant has filed a complaint against the accused No. 1 and 2 for

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

4/6

::: Uploaded on – 24/07/2018 25/07/2018 01:40:27 :::
5 CrAppln 1452 14J

section 34 of the Indian Penal Code with Shevgaon police station. The

allegations in that complaint and present complaint are same but at that

time the complainant did not make the applicants as accused. Therefore,

it appears that the complainant make vague and general allegations

against the applicants.

7. In view of the above and on perusal of the first information

report as well as statement of witnesses it also appears that there is no

material particular quoting any specific incident of visit or about

illtreatment or harassment at the hands of applicants, so as to attract the

ingredients of section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code or other offences

as alleged by the complainant. The applicants are not residing with the

original accused No. 1 and his family. It appears that, the applicants are

distant relatives of the accused No.1. Hence to prevent the abuse of

process of law, we find that discretion needs to be exercised in respect of

applicants No. 1and 2. Hence, following order:

ORDER

1. Application is allowed.

2. Relief is granted in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ only to the

extent of present applicants. The trial is to proceed against

the remaining accused.

5/6

::: Uploaded on – 24/07/2018 25/07/2018 01:40:27 :::

6 CrAppln 1452 14J

8. Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly.

9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

(K. L. WADANE, J.) (T.V.NALAWADE,J.)

mkd/-

6/6

::: Uploaded on – 24/07/2018 25/07/2018 01:40:27 :::

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