Bombay High Court
Suresh Mahadeo Lagad And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 11 April, 2023
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Abhay S. Waghwase
Judg-CRI.APPLN-3511-2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3511 OF 2022
1. Suresh S/o. Mahadeo Lagad, ]
Age : 56 Years, Occu. Business, ]
R/o. Near Tata Colony, Prabhudha Nagar, ]
R.C. Marg, Chembur, Mumbai - 400 074. ] (Father-in-law)
2. Manda W/o. Suresh Lagad, ]
Age : 52 Years, Occu. Household, ]
R/o. Near Tata Colony, Prabhudha Nagar, ]
R. C. Marg, Chembur, Mumbai - 400 074. ] (Mother-in-law)
3. Prashant S/o. Suresh Lagad, ]
Age : 29 years, Occu. Service, ]
R/o. Near Tata Colony, Prabhudha Nagar, ]
(G-69, Gate No.1) ]
R.C. Marg, Chembur, Mumbai - 400 074. ] (Brother-in-law)
4. Vishal S/o. Suresh Lagad, ]
Age : 26 years, Occu. Service, ]
R/o. Near Tata Colony, Prabhudha Nagar, ]
(G-69, Gate No.1) ]
R.C. Marg, Chembur, Mumbai - 400 074. ] (Brother-in-law)
5. Yogesh S/o. Dadasaheb Eekshinge, ]
Age : 39 years, Occ. : Agril., ]
R/o. Chincholi, Tal. Ashti, ]
Dit. Beed. ] (Son of sister of father-in-law)
6. Dadasaheb S/o. Baburao Ekshinge, ]
Age : 68 Yarss, Occu. : Agril., ]
R/o. Chincholi, Tal. Ashti, ]
Dist. Beed. ] (Husband of sister of Father-in-law)
7. Padminibai W/o. Dadasaheb Ekshinge, ]
Age : 62 years, Occu. : Agril., ]
R/o. Chincholi, Tal. Ashti, ] (sister of father-in-law)
Dist. Beed. ]
... Applicants.
1/8
::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2023 01:26:56 :::
Judg-CRI.APPLN-3511-2022.odt
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra ]
Through Ambhora City Police Station, ]
Tal. Ashti, Dist. Beed. ]
2. Reshma W/o. Akash Lagad, ]
Age : 28 Years, Occu. Household, ]
R/o. Shiral, Tal. Ashti, Dist. Beed. ] ... Respondents
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Sushant B. Choudhari
APP for Respondent No.1 : Mr. V. S. Badakh
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Ms. Sunita G. Sonawane
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND
ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 28 MARCH 2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 11 APRIL 2023
JUDGMENT (PER ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) :
. In-laws of respondent no.2 complainant are seeking exercise of
powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for
quashing FIR bearing No. 222 of 2018 registered at Ambhora Police Station,
Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed, which was registered for offence punishable under
Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code
(IPC).
2. According to respondent no.2, after her marriage with non
Judg-CRI.APPLN-3511-2022.odt
applicant husband Akash, she went to reside with him and in-laws who were
residing jointly. She has alleged that after two months of cohabitation and stay
with husband and in-laws, she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty on
petty counts. There used to be taunting and comments, saying that, she is not
fit to be daughter-in-law of their house. She has alleged that nobody talked to
her and whenever she attempted to do so, she was insulted. According to her,
one day, all in-laws i.e. husband, parents-in-law and brothers-in-law told her
that she should arrange Rs. 20 lakh for purchasing a flat at Chembur and also
Rs. 10 lakh for setting up a petrol pump at Sabalkhed. They also said that if
the amount is not arranged, she should take that she cannot cohabit. She has
alleged that, mother-in-law use to instigate husband and brothers-in-law to
give beating to her if she failed to bring money. Moreover, that when her
husband and in-laws came at Sabalkhed, they complained that her mental
treatment is going on and that this aspect was suppressed from them, and
thereafter, they again demanded Rs. 30 lakh and on failure, threatened not to
allow complainant to return for cohabitation. She has alleged beating at the
hands of husband for failure to bring money and that she was forcibly dropped
at her parent's house. While she was made to stay at Sabalkhed and that time
she was kept alone and moreover kept starved. She has alleged that nephew
of father-in-law, namely Yogesh Dadasaheb Ekshinge (Accused No.7),
Dadasaheb Baburao Ekshinge (Accused No.8) and Padminibai Dadasaheb
Ekshinge (Accused No.8) also talked to her in filthy language and also uttered
Judg-CRI.APPLN-3511-2022.odt
about her infidelity and as ill-treatment became severe, she was brought to her
parent's house and hence she has implicated names of her husband and in-
laws.
On the strength of above complaint, police have investigated the
crime and charge-sheeted accused persons and such crime and charge-sheet is
now sought to be quashed and set aside by exercising the powers under
section 482 of Cr.P.C.
3. We have heard both sides at length.
4. Husband is not before this court. At the admission stage, when
this Court expressed disinclination to grant any relief to applicant Nos.1 and 2
i.e. parents-in-law, learned counsel for the applicants, on instructions, has
already withdrawn the instant proceeding to their extent. Therefore, the
proceedings to the extent of applicant Nos.3 to 7 have only remained for
consideration.
5. According to learned counsel for applicant, complaint is patently
false. There was no ill-treatment, demand, taunting as alleged in the
complaint. On the contrary it is submitted that complainant was mentally
disturbed and this fact was kept hidden from them. Her behaviour and
Judg-CRI.APPLN-3511-2022.odt
conduct was improper. It is pointed out that parents and relatives of
respondent no.2 themselves used to issue threats and enter the house and beat
applicants. Complaints to that extent were also lodged at police station.
Learned counsel invited our attention to the complaints at Exhibit-'C'. For
above reasons, it is submitted that the instant complaint is false, afterthought
and with the sole intention of harassing husband and in-laws.
6. On behalf of State, the learned APP would point out that
applicants are named in the FIR. There are allegations of demand of Rs.30
lakh for purchase of flat as well as setting up a petrol pump. He submitted
that roles of husband and in-laws are clearly defined, and therefore, there is
sufficient material for trial, and hence, he prays to dismiss the application.
7. Learned counsel representing respondent no.2 also resisted the
application and prayers contending that there was ill-treatment and cruelty to
respondent no.2 merely after few months of marriage. That, husband and in-
laws, more particularly, parents-in-law and brothers-in-law put up demand of
Rs.30 lakh. On failure to meet the said demand, they refused to allow her to
cohabit and there was both, physical and mental cruelty to her. All instances
are narrated by her in the complaint. Only because of such grave allegations,
FIR was registered and investigation was carried out, during which there is
sufficient evidence gathered by investigating machinery and now they are
Judg-CRI.APPLN-3511-2022.odt
charge-sheeted. Therefore, according to her, accused persons are liable to face
consequences for their deeds and hence, she prays that application be
dismissed.
8. Here, applicants have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court
under section 482 of Cr.P.C. In catena of judgments the Hon'ble Apex Court has
time and again reiterated that inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. can
be exercised by the High Court; firstly, to give effect to an order under Cr.P.C.,
secondly, to prevent abuse of process of court and thirdly, to secure ends of
justice.
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.
9. Having dealt with law on exercise of inherent powers under
section 482 of Cr.P.C., we now turn to the FIR and charge-sheet in the case in
hand to examine whether the case for exercise of such powers is at all made
out.
10. In the light of above background and material on record, it seems
that complainant was married with non-applicant husband in 2016. On
Judg-CRI.APPLN-3511-2022.odt
carefully examining the complaint, more particularly, initial part of the
complaint, there seems to be allegations only against husband, parents-in-law
and two brothers-in-law, i.e. applicant nos. 1 to 4.
11. According to complainant, there was demand of Rs.20 lakh for
purchasing flat at Chembur and Rs.10 lakh for setting up petrol pump.
According to her, all this happened merely after 2 months of marriage. Taking
into account the date of marriage, it would be somewhere around June/July of
2016. Applicant nos.3 and 4 have placed on record leaving certificates issued
by College of Engineering and Technology, Navi Mumbai and D. Y. Patil
Institute of Engineering & Technology, Talegaon MIDC Road, Talegaon Pune
respectively. They appear to have obtained the said leaving certificates in the
year 2017 and in 2022 respectively. Therefore, both applicant Nos.3 and 4
seem to be undergoing education during the period for which allegations of
demand and ill-treatment are attributed.
12. In the complaint, respondent no.2 has alleged that applicant
nos.5, 6 and 7 talked to her in abusive and filthy language during their visit at
Sabalkhed, during the period i.e. on 27.12.2017, while respondent no.2 was
residing at there. This is a solitary incidence of some utterance which is spelt
out in the FIR. Therefore, here as regards to applicant nos.3 to 6 are
concerned, there are apparently no allegations of ill-treatment in the backdrop
Judg-CRI.APPLN-3511-2022.odt
of any demand. However, there are repeated allegations against husband and
applicant nos.1 and 2. Admittedly, husband is not before this court.
As regards applicant nos.1 and 2 i.e. parents-in-law are
concerned, application to their extent has already been withdrawn.
13. For above reasons, allegations as against applicant nos.3 to 7
seem to be in absence of allegation of maltreatment in the backdrop of any
demand. Therefore, in our opinion, launching of prosecution against them
would be definitely amount to an abuse of process of law. They will be
unnecessarily made to face trial with such quality of evidence. Consequently,
we proceed to pass following order:-
ORDER
(i) Criminal Application is partly allowed.
(ii) Crime bearing No. 222 of 2018, dated 26.11.2018 registered at
Ambhora Police Station, Tal. Ashti, District Beed and case bearing R.C.C. No.
24 of 2019 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashti,
District Beed are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of applicant Nos.
3 to 7.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
Tandale/-
