Kalavati W/O. Maruti Panchal And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 1129 Bom

                                        (1)                      criappln3039.19.odt




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                    CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3039 OF 2019


1.    Kalavati w/o. Maruti Panchal,
      Age : 30 years, Occu : Household,

2.    Maruti s/o. Pandurang Panchal,
      Age : 36 years, Occ : Carpenter,
      Both R/o. Pinnacle Ridge, NIBM Road,
      Kondhwa, Pune.                                         .... APPLICANTS
                                                                 (Ori. Accused)

                       VERSUS

1.    The State of Maharashtra,
      Through Police Station Nanded Gramin,
      Tq. & Dist. Nanded.

2.    Sanjivani w/o. Ramdas Panchal,
      Age : 25 years, Occu.: Household,
      R/o. Yevati, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded.               .... RESPONDENTS
                                                 (Res. No.2 Orig. Complainant)


Shri. S. R. Bagal h/f Shri. B. N. Gadegaonkar, Advocate for the applicants
Shri. S. J. Salgare, APP for the respondent No. 1
Shri. Shrimant Munde, Advocate for respondent No. 2

                                        CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE &
                                                M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.

                                        DATED : 18-01-2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER :- M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.)

1.             Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the

parties, heard finally at the admission stage.



2.             By this application the applicants are invoking the powers under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the FIR.




     ::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2021                   ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 03:43:36 :::
                                          (2)                      criappln3039.19.odt




3.             The allegations in the FIR are to the effect that respondent No.

2 married Ramdas Suryakant Panchal on 10/03/2012. Applicant No. 1 is the

sister of the said Ramdas Suryakant Panchal and applicant No. 2 is the

husband of applicant No. 1. Ramdas Panchal is the resident of Yevati, Tq.

Mukhed, District Nanded. Respondent No. 2 has alleged that she was

maintained well for a period of 3 years after marriage. The applicants, her

husband and other relatives started illtreating respondent No. 2. They

started saying that she should bring Rs.2,00,000/- from her parents for

purchasing a plot. On her failure to do so she was subjected to illtreatment.

Applicants had come to Yevati and took her son Nitin to Pune. Her parents-

in-law, her another sister-in-law and applicant Nos. 1 and 2 used to say that

she would be done away with. They used to say that she should bring Rs.

2,00,000/- from her parents. Since there was no improvement, she

alongwith her father came to her maternal place on 17/02/2019. On

20/02/2019 she made an application to J.M.F.C. Mukhed under Section 97 of

Cr.P.C. for obtaining custody of her son Nitin. On 26/02/2019 Nitin was given

in her custody. On 26/02/2019 at 7.00 p.m. applicant Nos. 1 and 2, another

sister-in-law by the name of Anita, Komal and Vimal, her husband Ramdas,

her parents-in-law Shashikala and Suryakanat Panchal came to her maternal

place and tried to snatch her son Nitin from her. Her neighbours at her

maternal place by the name of Balaji Yevate and others came to her rescue.

Her sister-in-laws banged her head on the floor. Thereafter she lodged this

FIR on 03/04/2018.



4.             Heard Shri. S. R. Bagal, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri.

S. J. Salgare, learned APP for the State and Shri. Shrimant Mundhe, learned




     ::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2021                    ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 03:43:36 :::
                                          (3)                       criappln3039.19.odt




counsel for respondent No. 2.



5.              Applicant No. 1 is sister-in-law of respondent No. 2 and

applicant No. 2 is the husband of applicant No. 1. General allegations are

made against applicant Nos. 1 and 2. Applicant No. 1 is the resident of

Kondhwa, Pune. She resides there with her husband applicant No. 2. It is

vaguely alleged that all the sister-in-laws banged her head on the floor. No

specific act is attributed to any of the applicants. It is alleged in the FIR that

respondent No. 2 was rescued by applicants by Balaji Yevate and others. On

perusal of the charge-sheet it is seen that the police have not recorded any

statement of either Balaji Yevate or any other neighbour of respondent No.2

On the basis of these vague allegations it would be an abuse of process of

law if the applicants are forced to face trial. On the basis of these allegations

it cannot be said that any cognizable offence is made out against the

applicants. Application is, therefore, allowed. Hence following order is

passed:

                                      ORDER

1. Application is allowed.

2. Relief is granted to applicants in terms of prayer clause 'C' and 'C1'.

3. Rule is made absolute in those terms.

[M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.] [T. V. NALAWADE , J.]

ssp/Jan.21/criappln3039.19.odt