Bombay High Court
Yogesh S/O. Pralhad Wajpe (Uncle In ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Mangrul Pir, ... on 23 October, 2024
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: Vinay Joshi
2024:BHC-NAG:12143-DB
Judgment 2 apl 1446.23
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1446/2023
1. Yogesh s/o Pralhad Wajpe,
Aged about 53 yrs., Occ. Pvt. Job,
(Uncle-in- laws)
2. Pranita w/o. Yogesh Wajpe,
Aged about 43 yrs., Occ. Household,
(Aunt-in-laws)
3. Malhar s/o Yogesh Wajpe,
aged about 20 yrs., Occ. Education,
(Brother-in-laws)
Nos. 1 to 3 R/o. Chakradhar Nagar,
Nawathe Plot, Amravati, Dist. Amravati.
... APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
P.S. Mangrul Pir, Dist. Washim.
2. Supriya w/o. Prafulla Joshi,
Age 39 yrs., Occ. Household,
C/o. Sahebrao Narayanrao Pimple,
R/o. Sanjeevani Housing Society,
Bypass Road, Mangrul Pir,
Tq. Mangrul Pir, Dist. Washim.
... NON-APPLICANTS
---------------------------------
Mr. S.B. Gandhe, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. M.K. Pathan, APP for non-applicant No.1/State
Mr. M. Deshpande, Advocate h/f Mr. D.R. Khapre, Advocate for non-
applicant No.2
----------------------------------
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND
Judgment 2 apl 1446.23
2
ABHAY J. MANTRI JJ.
DATE : 23.10.2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :
Heard.
2. Admit.
3. By this application, the applicants are seeking to quash
criminal prosecution vide RCC No. 237/2022 arising out of Crime
No. 25/2022 registered with Police Station Mangrul Pir, Dist.
Washim for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The applicant No.1 Yogesh is maternal uncle of husband
whilst applicant No.2 Pranita is maternal aunt of husband. Applicant
No.3 Malhar is son of maternal uncle. Husband who is co-accused is
not before us.
5. The informant got married with co-accused Prafulla in the
Judgment 2 apl 1446.23
month of April 2018 stayed at matrimonial house for one month at
Amravati. Later, the couple shifted to Mumbai as husband was
working at Mumbai. It is informant's contention that her husband
Prafulla was having illicit relation with applicant No.2 i.e. maternal
aunt since prior to her marriage. She realized that the husband was
not interested in marital life, but was having intimacy with maternal
aunt. The informant stated several instances as to how husband was
behaving indiscriminately with the wife. She stated that due to illicit
relation, the husband was not looking after informant, but was
harassing her. The husband had also raised monetary demand and
used to assault her physically. It is informant's contention that twice
she went to the applicants' house for seeking explanation and asked for
return of gold ornaments, on which, applicants abused and threatened
her.
6. The learned counsel for applicants would submit that as
per informant's own case, after one month from the marriage, the
couple shifted to Mumbai whilst all applicants permanently stayed at
Amravati. It is his contention that there was no occasion for these
Judgment 2 apl 1446.23
applicants to harass informant. It is argued that the entire allegations
are against husband only. According to the learned counsel for
applicants, there was no direct role attributed to the applicants of
harassment or demand. On the other hand, learned counsel for
informant/non-applicant No.2 would submit that maternal aunt is a
cause and due to said illicit relation, the husband used to harass
informant. The learned counsel for informant has pointed two
instances where all applicants have abused and gave threats.
7. We have considered the entire material. Undoutedly, the
allegations are centering around the husband and his act of raising
monetary demand. Absolutely, there are no allegations that either
have assaulted physically or raised monetary demand to the informant.
However, it reveals that maternal aunt was quite proximity to the
husband and due to her illicit relation, the husband allegedly harassed
informant lady. As regards to instances quoted by informant, it is to
be noted that on both occasions, informant went to the house of
applicants for some reasons and at that time, there was quarrel and
abused. Those isolated instances that too on account of informant
Judgment 2 apl 1446.23
visiting to the applicants' house cannot construe as an act within the
ambit of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. However, as
regards to applicant No.2 maternal aunt is concerned, her act of
keeping illicit relation with the husband which became a cause for
harassment and has disturbed the marital life is mater of trial to be
appreciated after recording evidence. In substance, the material
collected during the course of investigation makes out a prima facie
case to the extent of applicant No.2 maternal aunt only. As regards to
the rest, in absence of material, continuation of prosecution against
them would be abuse of the process of the Court.
8. In view of above, application is partly allowed. We hereby
quash and set aside criminal prosecution vide RCC No. 237/2022
arising out of Crime No. 25/2022 registered with Police Station
Mangrul Pir, Dist. Washim for the offence punishable under Sections
498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to the
extent of applicant No. 1 Yogesh s/o Pralhad Wajpe and applicant
No.3 Malhar s/o Yogesh Wajpe.
9. Application stands disposed of in above terms.
Judgment 2 apl 1446.23
(ABHAY J. MANTRI J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Gohane
Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 25/10/2024 16:57:32
