Bombay High Court
Sandip S/O. Prakash Wagh And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 1 February, 2021
Bench: T.V. Nalawade, M. G. Sewlikar
(1) criappln559.19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 559 OF 2019
1. Sandip S/o Prakash Wagh,
Age - 28 years, Occu - Labour,
R/o. Shahagad, Taluka- Ambad,
District - Jalna,
2. Prakash S/o Vishwnath Wagh,
Age - 65 years, Occu - Nil,
R/o Village Chandol,
Taluka & District - Buldhana,
3. Savita W/o Prakash Wagh,
Age - 55 years, Occu - Nil,
R/o Village Chandol,
Taluka & District - Buldhana,
4. Vijay S/o Prakash Wagh,
Age - 55 years, Occu - Nil,
R/o Village Chandol,
Taluka & District - Buldhana,
5. Ravi S/o Daraji Ubale,
Age - 31 years, Occu - Labour,
R/o Ram-Mandir Lane,
Shahagad, Taluka - Ambad,
District - Jalna
6. Swati w/o Ravi Ubale,
Age - 28 years, Occu - Service,
R/o Ram-Mandir Lane,
Shahagad, Taluka - Ambad,
District - Jalna
7. Sumanbai W/o Daraji Ubale,
Age - 51 years, Occu - Nil,
R/o Ram-Mandir Lane,
Shahagad, Taluka - Ambad,
District - Jalna
8. Ayodhyabai W/o Bablu Motale,
Age - 31 years, Occu - Labour,
R/o Majalgaon, Taluka - Majalgaon,
District Beed. .... APPLICANTS
VERSUS
::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2021 17:10:07 :::
(2) criappln559.19.odt
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Officer, Gondi Police Station,
District - Jalna.
2. Sonali w/o Sandip Wagh,
Age - 22 years, Occu - Labour,
R/o. Village Ramasgaon,
Taluka - Ghansangavi,
District - Jalna. .... RESPONDENTS
Shri. Sandip R. Andhale, Advocate for the applicants
Shri. A. S. Shinde, APP for respondent No. 1
Smt. S. E. Waghmare, Advocate for respondent No. 2
CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE &
M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.
DATED : 01-02-2021
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER :- M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. At the stage of admission,
heard finally with the consent of all the parties.
2. This is an application for quashing of the First Information
Report registered with the Police Station Gondi, District Jalna under Sections
498A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 and under Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Facts giving rise to this application are that respondent No. 2
married applicant No. 1 on 09/05/2016.
4. Applicant No. 1 is the husband of respondent No. 2. Applicant
No. 2 is the father-in-law, applicant No. 3 is the mother-in-law, applicant No.
4 is the brother-in-law of respondent No.2, applicant No. 5 is the husband of
::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2021 17:10:07 :::
(3) criappln559.19.odt
applicant No. 6, applicant No. 6 is the sister-in-law of respondent No.2,
applicant No. 7 is the mother and applicant No. 8 is the sister of applicant
No. 5.
5. The allegations against the applicants are that respondent No. 2
was maintained well for a period of two years after marriage. Thereafter,
they started illtreating and harassing respondent No. 2. They used to abuse
her saying that she should bring Rs. 1 lakh from her parents as they wanted
to start a hotel at Shahagad. She narrated these incidents to her parents.
Her parents tried to convince the applicants, but the applicants continued
their illtreatment. They used to keep her starved and used to beat her and
finally they drove her out of the house on 13/11/2018. Aforesaid FIR came to
be registered against the applicants.
6. Heard Shri. Sandip R. Andhale, learned counsel for the
applicants, Shri. A. S. Shinde, learned APP for the respondent No. 1 and
Smt. S. E. Waghmare, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
7. When this Court expressed its disinclination to give any relief to
applicant Nos. 1 to 4, learned counsel Shri. Andhale sought withdrawal of the
application to their extent. So far as applicant Nos. 5 to 8 are concerned,
general allegations are made against them. On the basis of these vague and
general allegations, it cannot be said that any cognizable offence is made out
against applicant Nos. 5 to 8. It is vaguely alleged that applicant Nos. 5 to 8
used to make unlawful demand of Rs. 1 lakh for starting a hotel at
Shahagad. They used to instigate husband of respondent No. 2. Only
::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2021 17:10:07 :::
(4) criappln559.19.odt
allegation against applicant Nos. 5 to 8 is that they would instigate husband
of respondent No. 2 to beat her, they used to abuse her. What kind of abuses
were hurled at her is not mentioned. Simply alleging that abuses were hurled
at respondent No. 2 will not bring the same within the sweep of Section 498A
of the Indian Penal Code. No details as regards time, date etc. are given. No
specific act is attributed to any of the applicant Nos. 5 to 8. Therefore, the
case of the applicants squarely falls within the conditions 1 and 3 as laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajanlal, AIR 1992, Supreme Court, 604. In this view of the matter,
continuation of prosecution would be an abuse of process of law. We are,
therefore, inclined to allow the application to the extent of applicants Nos. 5
to 8. Hence following order is passed.
ORDER
1. The Criminal Application of applicant Nos. 1 to 4 is disposed of as
withdrawn.
2. The Criminal Application of applicant Nos. 5 to 8 is allowed.
3. Relief is granted in favour of applicants No. 5 to 8 in terms of prayer
clause 'B'.
4. Rule made absolute in those terms.
[M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.] [T. V. NALAWADE , J.]
ssp/Feb.21/criappln559.19.odt
