Manisha W/O. Anand Dongre And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2182 Bom

                                       1                  2018.2022APPLN


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 80 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2018 OF 2022

             MANISHA W/O. ANAND DONGRE AND OTHERS
                                   VERSUS
             THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                      ...
                 Advocate for the applicants : Mr.H.V. Tungar
              APP for the respondent - State : Mr.S.J. Salgare
       Advocate for respondent no.2 : Mrs.Prashanti Tambat (appointed)
                                      ...

                                CORAM      : MANGESH S. PATIL &
                                             M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.

                                DATE       : 06 MARCH 2023

PC :

This is yet another instance, as indicated by judgments in

the case of Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and

another; AIR 2010 SC 3363, Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and

others Vs. State of Bihar and others; (2022) 6 SCC 599, Neelu

Chopra and others Vs. Bharti; 2009 (10) SCC 184 and Geeta

Mehrotra and another Vs. State of U.P.; 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1251.

There is usual tendency to rope in as many as relatives of the husband

while implicating him and his parents for cruelty under sections 498-A,

323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Married sisters-in-law, married brother-in-law and rest of

the relatives of the husband are seeking quashment of crime lodged by

respondent no.2 for aforementioned offences registered as crime

2 2018.2022APPLN

No.0104/2022 with Majalgaon City Police Station, Tq. Majalgaon,

Dist.Beed.

3. A bare look at the F.I.R. and the statements of the

witnesses reveal that though all the applicants have been named, the

only role attributed to them is regarding alleged exhortation. According

to the informant-respondent no.2, they all were instigating the husband

to subject her to cruelty by demanding money. The statements of the

witnesses are also on the same lines.

4. No specific and precise role is attributed to the applicants,

who are the married sisters-in-law, married brother-in-law, distant

relatives of the husband who is an advocate and through whom he had

served notice to her and paternal uncle of the husband. There are no

allegations that they all were cohabiting with this couple under the

same roof or have been residing in the nearby locality in the same

village. It would be travesty of justice in the light of the observations of

the Supreme Court in the matters of (supra), to allow the prosecution to

go on as against the applicants, albeit there is matrimonial dispute and

husband and his parents are implicated in very same crime. The case

is squarely covered by the instances mentioned in State of Haryana

and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others; AIR 1992 SC 604.

3 2018.2022APPLN

5. The application is allowed. The Crime vide FIR No.0104 of

2022 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506

read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered with Majalgaon City

Police Station, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed and the consequent Regular

Criminal Case No. 132 of 2022 are quashed and set aside to the extent

of the applicants.

6. Mrs. Prashanti Tambat, learned advocate for the

respondent No.2 has been appointed. We quantify her fees at

Rs.2,000/- (Rs. Two Thousand).

     [ M.M. SATHAYE ]                           [ MANGESH S. PATIL ]
          JUDGE                                       JUDGE

sga/