Bombay High Court
Sheela Kaple W/O Gangadhar Kaple ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Ps Mahuli ... on 13 October, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
1 13-apl-1122-2021-J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1122 OF 2021
APPLICANTS : 1 Smt. Sheela Kaple W/o Gangadhar Kaple,
Aged 59 years, O/c - Retired,
R/o Ward No. 4, Meera Colony, Pulgaon,
Wardha, District Wardha (M.H.)
2 Priya Kaple D/o Gangadhar Kaple,
Aged - 24 Years, O/c - Student,
R/o Ward No. 4, Meera Colony, Pulgaon,
Wardha, District Wardha (M.H.)
3 Mr. Sanjay Gulhane S/o Prabhakarrao
Gulhane,
Aged - 60 years, O/c - School Principal,
R/o Ghore Nagar, Deomali, Paratwadi,
Paratwada Amravati Road, District -
Amravati (M.H.)
VS.
NON - APPLICANTS : 1 State of Maharashtra, Through Police
Station - Mahuli, District Amravati (M.H.)
2 Dipika Sandeep Dafe W/o Sandeep Dafe
Aged - 31 Years, O/c - Nil, R/o 1332
Ward no.3, In front of Mahuli Police
Station, Village Mahuli Jahangir, District -
Amravati (M.H.)
Mr. Hitesh Sharma h/f Mr. Raju Kadu, Advocate for the applicants
Mr. T.A. Mirza, APP for the non-applicant No.1 / State
CORAM: V.M.DESHPANDE, &
PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
DATE : OCTOBER 13, 2021
2 13-apl-1122-2021-J.odt
JUDGMENT : (Per : V.M.DESHPANDE, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard Mr.
Hitesh Sharma h/f Mr. Raju Kadu, learned counsel for the applicants
and Mr. T.A. Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-
applicant / State.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for quashing of the charge-sheet filed by Police
Station Mahuli Jahangir for the offences punishable under Sections
498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, the
applicants are distinct relatives of the non-applicant No.2 - Dipika,
who lodged the First Information Report dated 29/01/2021 with
Police Station Mahuli Jahangir. Since the oral report given by the
non-applicant No.2 was disclosing commission of cognizable offences,
Police Station Officer of Mahuli Jahangir Police Station registered
crime vide Crime No.28/2021 for offences punishable under Sections
498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
against the accused persons. The applicants are one of them.
4. As per the report the marriage between the non-applicant
No.2 and Sandip were performed on 20/06/2017. After the
marriage, she started residing with her husband, her mother-in-law
3 13-apl-1122-2021-J.odt
and father-in-law in a building known as Sunrise Complex at Pune.
For a period of one year everything went well. Thereafter, there was a
delivery of the non-applicant No.2 and a girl child was born. In the
meanwhile, her mother-in-law was passed away. During the
pregnancy period the non-applicant No.2 quit her job. Quitting a job
was not taken in a good spirit by her husband and non-applicant No.2
was driven away from her matrimonial house. She was therefore,
required to take shelter at her parents house at Mahuli Jahangir. The
complaint states that after the delivery, there took a compromise
between husband and wife and wife started residing in her
matrimonial house. A complaint states that aunt of Sandeep i.e. the
applicant No.1 and her daughter applicant No.2 were called by her
husband at Pune and they started residing in the house. The FIR
recites and alleges that these two ladies used to beat the first
informant. Not only that the FIR further states that after the husband
of non-applicant No.2 used to leave house for his job, these two ladies
to give mental torture to the first informant. Similarly, the applicant
No.3 used to visit regularly at her matrimonial house and during his
stay he used to practice mental cruelty on the first informant. There
specific allegations against the applicants No.1 and 2 that they used to
instigate the husband of the non-applicant No.2 and on her
instigation, her husband used to put Dipika's head inside the toilet
commode.
4 13-apl-1122-2021-J.odt
5. The Investigating Officer has also recorded statements of
various witnesses. Perusal of their statements would show that the
non-applicant No.2 was subject to cruelty both mentally and
physically not only at the hands of her husband and her father-in-law
but by the present applicants also.
6. The learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance
on various decisions. The law is very well crystallized. Every criminal
case has to be decided on its own facts.
7. Present is the stage of quashing of the charge-sheet as
prayed for. There are specific allegations against the applicants not
only in the FIR but also in the statements of witnesses. The
truthfulness or otherwise of those allegations have to be tested during
trial alone. Merely because it is stated by the learned counsel for the
applicants that the applicant No.1 and applicant No.3 are 60 years of
age that cannot be the ground for quashment of the charge-sheet
because of the specific allegations made against them. The learned
counsel submitted that the applicants are residing 600 Km away from
the place of residence of non-applicant No.2. The statement of facts
as disclosed in the FIR clearly shows that the applicants No.1 and 2
were called by the husband of the non-applicant No.2 to stay with
5 13-apl-1122-2021-J.odt
them at Pune and during their stay there used to be ill-treatment at
their hands upon the non-applicant No.2.
8. In view of the specific allegations made, we are of the
view that the prosecution needs to be given full opportunity to prove
its case in the trial.
9. In view of the specific allegations made in the FIR and
the material collected during the course of investigation, which is on
record by way of charge-sheet, in order to avoid bulkiness of the
judgment, we are not referring the judgments cited by the learned
counsel for the applicants. No case is made out.
10. The application is hereby rejected.
11. Rule is discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
MP Deshpande
