Bombay High Court
Pemrao Balaji Shinde And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 6 December, 2022
Bench: V. V. Kankanwadi, Abhay S. Waghwase
CriAppln-1374-2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1374 OF 2020
1] Pemrao Balaji Shinde
(Named as Premrao in F.I.R.)
Age-38 years, Occupation - Labour,
R/o. Haldav, Tq. Loha, Dist. Nanded.
At present - Chandan Nagar,
By-Pass, Pune.
2] Sambhaji Kondiba Kalhale
Age-46 years, Occupation-Business,
R/o. Shivshankar Chal, Kranti Nagar,
Akroli Road, Kandivali (East),
Mumbai-400 101.
3] Balaji Dadarao Kalhale
Age-70 years, Occupation-Agriculture,
R/o. Dagad Sangavi, Tq. Loha,
Dist. Nanded.
4] Rameshwar Dadarao Kalhale
Age-43 years, Occupation-Business,
R/o. R.M. 121/6, M.I.D.C., Waluj,
Aurangabad.
5] Rekha Rameshwar Kalhale
Age-35 years, Occupation-Household,
R/o. R.M. 121/6, M.I.D.C., Waluj,
Aurangabad.
6] Dhondubai Balaji Kalhale
Age-60 years, Occupation-Housewife,
R/o. Dagad Sangavi, Tq. Loha, Dist. Nanded.
7] Ganpat Balaji Kalhale
Age-38 years, Occupation-Business,
R/o. R.H.30/1, Bajaj Nagar, Waluj M.I.D.C.,
Aurangabad.
1/7
::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2022 09:43:09 :::
CriAppln-1374-2020.odt
8] Uttam Prabhakar @ Prabhu Fajge
Age-69 years, Occupation-Agriculture,
R/o. Dagad Sangavi, Tq. Loha, Dist. Nanded.
9] Vyankat Prabhakar @ Prabhu Fajge
(Named as Vyankati in F.I.R.)
Age-47 years, Occupation-Agriculture,
R/o. Dagad Sangavi, Tq. Loha, Dist. Nanded.
10] Rukhmin Uttam Fajge
Age-46 years, Occupation-Housewife,
R/o. Dagad Sangavi, Tq. Loha,
Dist. Nanded. ... Applicants
[orig. accused nos. 10 to 19]
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Malakoli,
Dist. Nanded.
2] Sunita w/o Nagorao Kalhale @
Sunita d/o Kishanrao Daithanekar
Age-27 years, Occupation-Household,
R/o. C/o Kishanrao Honaji Daithanekar
Daithana, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded. ... Respondents
[Respondent No.2 orig Informant]
.....
Mr. Ashwini A. Lomte, Advocate h/f Mr. S. J. Salunke, Advocate for the
Applicants.
Mr. A. M. Phule, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
Ms. Ranjana D. Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (absent)
.....
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.
DATE : 06.12.2022
2/7
::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2022 09:43:09 :::
CriAppln-1374-2020.odt
JUDGMENT (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) :
1. The present applicants, who are in-laws of respondent no.2 Sunita, are
seeking quashing of FIR No. 147 of 2020 registered with Malakoli Police
Station, District Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,
323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and the
consequent proceedings, i.e. by invoking the inherent powers of this Court
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "Cr.P.C.")
2. Respondent no.2 Sunita informed the police that, she was married to
non-applicant Nagorao on 27.01.2009. After marriage, she came to reside with
her husband and in-laws. According to her, immediately after marriage, she
was taunted on account of her looks and for bringing less dowry and further
asked her to bring Rs.5,00,000/- and on such count, she was subjected to
physical and mental cruelty and even beating, and she was driven out of the
house. After few days, as there was marriage of her sister-in-law, her in-laws
called her back and at such time they raised a demand of Rs.5,00,000/- for
proposed marriage of her sister-in-law. They threatened her that they would
not allow her to stay if she fails to bring the amount. She alleged that her
husband beat her. According to her, in 2012 Rs.50,000/- was paid. She further
claims that that by selling her stree dhan she set up a shop, but accused
threatened her that they would not allow her to run the shop. She claims that
CriAppln-1374-2020.odt
her maternal uncle had given Rs.2,00,000/- for setting up the shop. However,
all accused did not allow her to stay and therefore, she came back to her
house. Consequently, she levelled allegations against mother-in-law, father-in-
law, sisters-in-law, who were quarreling with her and suspecting her character.
Hence she lodged the FIR.
On the strength of above complaint, crime was registered for above
offences and investigation was carried out and on its conclusion, charge-sheet
was filed.
It is the above FIR and charge-sheet which is now sought to be nullified
by applicants herein praying to exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
3. As to when powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised is fairly
settled by slew of judgments including Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr. Vs.
State of Uttaranchal and Ors. ; (2007) 12 SCC 1 and Mahendra K.C. Vs. State
of Karnataka and Another ; (2022) 2 Supreme Court Cases 129.
4. In the backdrop of the legal requirement on the scope and exercise of
power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as culled out in the above rulings, we turn
to the FIR and the charge-sheet to ascertain whether the same amounts to
abuse of process of law. On examining the FIR, it is emerging that
CriAppln-1374-2020.odt
applicant no.1 is brother-in-law of husband, applicant nos. 2 to 4 are
husband's cousin brothers, applicant no.5 is wife of applicant no.4, applicant
no.6 is wife of applicant no.3, applicant no.7 is son of applicant nos. 3 and 6,
applicant nos. 8 and 9 are sons of paternal aunt of husband and applicant
no.10 is wife of applicant no.8. On carefully going through the FIR, we come
across that informant's marriage was performed with non-applicant Nagorao
on 27.01.2009. There are allegations by the informant that immediately after
marriage, her parents-in-law, sisters-in-law, cousin father-in-law, cousin
brothers-in-law and their wives commented on her looks and taunted for not
bringing sufficient dowry and thereby asked her to bring Rupees five lakh
more and on such count, she was said to be subjected to physical and mental
cruelty. What was the nature of ill-treatment and when it occurred is not
clarified in the FIR. Sweeping allegations are levelled against the parents-in-
law, sisters-in-law, cousin brothers-in-law and wives of cousin brothers-in-law.
Second allegation is that at the time of marriage of one of her sisters-in-law,
she was called back and again demand of Rupees five lakh was raised for the
purpose of said marriage of said sister-in-law and on such count, they
threatened that if said demand is not fulfilled, they would not allow her to
stay. Such allegations are also patently general in nature. She has attributed
beating to her husband but he is not applicant herein. Then, she has informed
that by selling her stree dhan and raising amount from her maternal uncle, she
set up a shop. Details of the same are also not stated in the FIR. She directly
CriAppln-1374-2020.odt
alleges that in-laws threatened to stop her business and asked her not to stay
in the house and therefore, she came back. She has attributed beating on
09.06.2020, but who beat her is not reflected in the FIR. She has attributed
allegations of abuse to all applicants.
5. Thus, FIR is full of vague, omnibus and general allegations without
specifying role of applicants herein. Some of the applicants are cousin brothers
of her husband and their wives. Sweeping allegations are levelled against
parents-in-law, sisters-in-law and cousin brothers-in-law along with their
wives. The FIR does not state as to who played what role. After going through
the charge-sheet, the statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. are found to be
stereotype and monotonous in nature.
6. In the recent case of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State
of Bihar and others ; (2022) 6 SCC 599, the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 18 has
held that there is growing tendency to rope in entire family, including distant
relatives. The case in hand is also found to be similar one. General, non-
specific and sweeping allegations are levelled against one and all. Husband is
not applicant herein. Therefore, in our considered opinion, in view of the
principles laid down in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan
Lal ; AIR 1992 SC 604, more particularly clause (7) as reflected in para 108 of
the judgment, the case in hand is also of similar nature. Continuation of such
CriAppln-1374-2020.odt
proceeding would render injustice to all the applicants who had no direct
concern with the informant or her domestic affairs. It is apparent abuse of
process of law and therefore, we find it a fit case to exercise powers under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and resultantly proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
I. The application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses [C], [C-1] and [C-
2] to the extent of the applicants herein.
II. The application is accordingly disposed off.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)
VRE
