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 :::
