Bombay High Court
Swati W/O. Vijay Shinde And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 15 March, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
(1) cria2893.21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
977 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2893 OF 2021
1. Swati w/o. Vijay Shinde .. Applicants
2. Ajinkya s/o. Vijay Shinde
3. Shilpa @ Vasanti w/o. Pratap Pimpale
[Application to the extent of applicant
Nos.1 to 3 is dismissed as withdrawn
vide order dated 05.01.2022]
4. Tanaya w/o. Prajakt Jadhav
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents
2. Supriya w/o. Aditya Shinde
Mr.D.S. Patil, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr.S.D. Ghayal, APP for the respondent/State.
Mr.Dinesh V. Manwatkar h/f. Mr.S.S. Randive, Advocate for
respondent No.2.
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV &
SANDIPKUMAR C.MORE,JJ.
DATED : 15.03.2022
PC :-
01. By consent of the parties, heard finally at the
stage of admission.
02. The applicant is seeking quashing of the FIR
bearing Crime No.254 of 2021 registered with Selu Police
Station, Tal. Selu, Dist. Parbhani, for the offences
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2022 01:38:05 :::
(2) cria2893.21
punishable under sections 313, 323, 498-A, 504, 506 read
with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
03. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that
there are no allegations against present applicant and
she has been implicated in connection with present crime
only for the reason that she is girl friend of accused
No.1 - husband of respondent No.2. Learned Counsel
submits that the girl friend of the husband is not
relative and as such provisions of section 498-A of the
IPC does not attract against her. Learned Counsel
submits that so far as other charges under sections 313,
323, 504 and 506 read with section 34 of the IPC are
concerned, the allegations to that extent have been made
only against co-accused persons and there are no
allegations against present applicant.
04. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that
somewhere around on one occasion the applicant had been
to the matrimonial house of respondent No.2 and insisted
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2022 01:38:05 :::
(3) cria2893.21
co-accused - husband to give divorce to respondent No.2
and further present applicant and other co-accused
husband abused and extended beating to her. Learned
Counsel submits that there is triable case against the
applicant and this application is liable to be dismissed.
05. We have also heard learned APP for
respondent/State.
06. Admittedly, the applicant is a girl friend of
co-accused - husband. Though there are allegations to
certain extent against present applicant, however, those
allegations are vague and absurd in nature. There is no
reference to the date, time and place. It has been
simply referred in the complaint that on one occasion
applicant has instigated co-accused-husband to give
divorce to respondent No.2 and thus both of them abused
and extended beating.
07. So far as allegations as made in the FIR against
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2022 01:38:05 :::
(4) cria2893.21
the applicant are concerned, even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not
prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case
against applicant herein. So far as charge under section
498-A of the IPC is concerned, in a case of U.Suvetha
Vs.State by Inspector of Police and Anr., 2009 AIR SC
(Supp) 1451, in para 18 and 21, the Supreme Court has
made following observations:-
"18. By no stretch of imagination a girl friend
or even a concubine in an etymological sense
would be a 'relative'. The word 'relative'
brings within its purview a status. Such a
status must be conferred either by blood or
marriage or adoption. If no marriage has taken
place, the question of one being relative of
another would not arise."
"21. Applying the principles laid down in
various decisions referred to above, we have no
doubt, in our mind, that the appellant is not a
relative of the husband of the first informant."
08. In above cited case, the Supreme Court has
observed that by no stretch of imagination a girl friend
or even a concubine in an etymological sense would be a
"relative".
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2022 01:38:05 :::
(5) cria2893.21
09. So far as charge under section 313 of the IPC is
concerned, though allegations are made mainly against co-
accused - husband, in a case of State of Haryana and Ors.
Vs. Bhajanlal & Ors., 1992 suppl. (1) SCC 335 in para
No.102 of the judgment, the Supreme Court by referring
various cases on this point has formulated categories of
cases by way of illustration, wherein powers under
section 498-A of Cr.P.C. could be exercised either to
prevent abuse of process of Court and securing ends of
justice. So far instant case is concerned, category Nos.1
and 3 which are relevant for discussion are reproduced
here-in-below:-
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and accepted
in their entirety do not prima facie constitute
any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made
in the FIR or complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not disclose
the commission of any offence and make out a
case against the accused."
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2022 01:38:05 :::
(6) cria2893.21
10. In view of above discussion and in terms of the
ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases, we are inclined
to quash FIR to the extent of applicant before us. Hence,
following order :-
O R D E R
(i) Criminal Application No.2893 of 2021 is
hereby allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) to
the extent of present applicant.
[SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE,J.] [V.K. JADHAV,J.]
snk/2022/MAR22/cria2893.21
