Bombay High Court
Chandrarekha W/O Nagnath Giri And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 17 April, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:11638-DB
1 32-APPLN.3301.2023-J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3301 OF 2023
1. Chandrarekha W/o. Nagnath Giri,
Age: 80 years, Occu: Nil,
2. Nitin Nagnath Giri,
Age: 39 years, Occu: Defence Service,
3. Chaya W/o. Nitin Giri,
Age: 32 years, Occu: Housewife,
Applicant no. 1 to 3 are
R/o. Kohima lines, Near Apna Bazar
Complex, Camp, Pune-411001.
4. Hemant S/o. Kisan Giri,
Age: 32 years, Occu: Fabrication,
R/o. Near Maruti Mandir, Post. Para,
Tq. Washi, Dist: Osmanabad.
5. Jayashree Mhalappa Ghodke,
Age: 54 years, Occu: Professor,
R/o. Punyashlok Nivas, Near Hanuman Mandir,
Naldurga, Tq. Tuljapur,
Dist: Osmanabad.
6. Pallavi Rohidas Gadhe,
Age: 35 years, Occu: GST Inspector,
R/o. Flat no. 27, Aurangabad Hsg Society,
Jay Bhavani Road, Behind Mhasoba Mandir,
Jayabai Colony, Nashik Road Camp,
Nashik, Tq. & Dist: Nashik. ... Applicants
(Ori. Accused no. 2 to 7 in FIR)
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Ministry of Home Affairs,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-1.
2. The District Superintendent of police,
Latur, Tq. and Dist: Latur.
2 32-APPLN.3301.2023-J.odt
3. The Police Inspector,
Shivaji Nagar Police Station,
Latur City, Tq. & Dist: Latur.
4. Smt. Shital Anup Giri,
Age: 33 years, Occu: Housewife,
R/o. Para, Tq. Vashi, Dist: Osmanabad
Presently residing at Shri Datta Niwas,
Sambhaji Nagar, Khandgaon Road,
Near to Ganpati Temple, Latur
Mob. No. 9834290228. ... Respondents
...
Ms. Rashmi Kulkarni, Advocate h/f. Mr. Dilip B. Rode and Mr. Sanket S.
Kulkarni for the Applicants.
Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3-State.
Mr. Shrikant G. Kawade, Advocate for Respondent No.4 (through V.C.).
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 17th APRIL, 2025
JUDGMENT:
- (Per Manjusha Deshpande, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned
Advocate appearing for the respective parties finally, by consent.
2. Applicant Nos.1 to 4 are the relatives of husband of
Respondent No.4-informant, who has filed FIR vide C.R. No.362 of
2023 dated 21st July 2023, registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station,
Latur for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Applicant No.5 is
professor and not related to the husband of the informant. Similarly,
3 32-APPLN.3301.2023-J.odt
Applicant No.6 is alleged to be friend of husband of the complainant
who is Government Servant. Respondent No.4-complainant filed FIR
against her husband and the Applicants herein alleging that her
husband-Anup Nagnath Giri and the Applicants have assaulted and ill-
treated her after her marriage. It is stated in the complaint that her
marriage with Anup was solemnized on 3 rd January 2016. Her father
had given Rs.7,00,000/- as a dowry along with 20 Tolas of gold
ornaments. It is stated that she was treated well by her husband and
in-laws for one year after the marriage. However, since January 2017,
her husband started insisting her that she should appear for MPSC
examination, for which she should join coaching classes. Accordingly,
she was enrolled for MPSC classes, though she did not like to study, she
was forced to study by her husband. It is alleged that due to insistence
of her husband that she should attend the MPSC classes, she was
mentally depressed. It is also alleged that Applicant No.6 one Pallavi R.
Gadhe was her husband's friend prior to their marriage, was also in
Government Employment. It is alleged that Applicant No.6 started
interfering with her marriage, due to which, there was a discord
between herself and her husband.
3. It is further alleged in the complaint that the Applicants
herein have abused her since she was not in Government Employment
4 32-APPLN.3301.2023-J.odt
and not of same standard, like her husband who had passed MPSC and
was working as Naib Tehsildar. She was also threatened by Applicants
that they will perform second marriage of her husband with the girl
who has qualified MPSC examination. It is alleged that she was many
times abused and assaulted by the Applicants and driven out of house
by them. She informed about the ill-treatment meted out to her, to her
father. Though a meeting was conducted to thrash out the differences
between herself and her husband, her husband instead of taking her to
reside along with him, he had left her at her in-laws house at Para,
District Osmanabad and he himself had gone to Nagpur, at the place of
his posting. It is alleged by her that she was ill-treated by her husband
and his relatives, which constrained her to leave the matrimonial
house. Thereafter, she has approached Bharosa Cell, Women's Assistant
Cell/Crime Branch Office of Superintendent of Police, Latur on 6 th July
2023, for filing complaint against the husband and his relatives. At
last, she has filed the FIR on 21 st July 2023, against the husband and
present Applicants.
4. It is the contention of the Applicants that they are not at all
concerned with the matrimonial life of the complainant along with her
husband-Anup. Applicant Nos.1 and 3, are the relatives of the husband
of informant who are residing separately in Pune, due to employment
5 32-APPLN.3301.2023-J.odt
of Applicant No.2 in military service. Applicant No.1 is the old age
mother of Applicant No.2 and she is residing with Applicant No.2 for
her medical treatment. Applicant No.2 is serving in the Indian Army.
Since last four years, he is posted at various places in Maharashtra and
Applicant No.3 is the wife of Applicant No.2, who resides along with
him at the places where he is stationed during his service tenure.
Applicant No.4 is a cousin of Applicant No.2 and the husband of
informant. He has no concern with the family of husband of informant
and he is residing separately. Applicant No.5 is the professor, who is
residing at Naldurga, Taluka Tuljapur, District Osmanabad, which is far
away from Palghar where the complainant resided along with her
husband-Anup. Therefore, there was no question of any ill-treatment
being given by Applicant No.5 to the complainant from such a long
distance. Similarly, Applicant No.6 is working as a GST Inspector at
Nashik, which is also far away from Palghar, where the complainant
last resided together with her husband.
5. The Applicant Nos.5 and 6 are neither blood relative nor
in-laws of the informant. Section 498-A would not be attracted in case
of both the Applicants. After filing of the present criminal application
seeking quashment of FIR vide C.R. No.362 of 2023, the chargesheet
came to be filed in the present case, therefore, Applicants have sought
amendment, with a prayer seeking directions to quash and set aside
6 32-APPLN.3301.2023-J.odt
R.C.C. No.132 of 2024 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Latur.
6. It is the contention of the Applicants that none of them have
resided with the complainant, inspite of that she has made wild
allegations against all of them, which is nothing but abuse of process of
law. The Advocate for the Applicants submits that the allegations in the
FIR against the present Applicants are general in nature. There is no
specific role attributed to any of the Applicants in the alleged physical
or mental harassment of the complainant. It is contended by learned
Advocate that, though offence under Section 323 is alleged to have
committed, there is no particular incident cited to support the
allegations of physical injury caused to the complainant. It is also not
supported by any medical record of the complainant.
7. The learned Advocate for the Applicants has drawn our
attention to the notice issued by the husband of the complainant dated
19th June 2022, seeking divorce from the complainant. The notice was
replied by the complainant on 4 th July 2022, wherein, she has shown
her willingness to cohabitate with the husband and has refused to grant
divorce. According to the learned Advocate for the Applicants, the
filing of FIR is nothing but an after thought by the complainant. Notice
was issued by the husband of complainant on 19 th June 2022 and
7 32-APPLN.3301.2023-J.odt
inspite of showing her willingness to cohabitate with him, in her reply
dated 4th July 2022, the complainant has filed FIR on 21 st July 2023.
This itself makes it obvious that merely in order to harass the
Applicants, the complainant has filed the FIR. Learned Advocate for
the Applicants further submits that, though the complainant was aware
that her husband has filed divorce proceedings before the learned Civil
Judge Senior Division, Bhoom, District Osmanabad being Hindu
Marriage Petition No.27 of 2023 dated 6th May 2023. She has not
referred to the divorce proceedings in her complaint.
8. It is the contention of learned Advocate for the Applicants
that filing of FIR and roping the Applicants by naming them in the FIR
is nothing short of wreaking vengeance against the husband for filing
divorce proceedings against the complainant. The criminal prosecution
is used as tool by the complainant for causing harassment and private
vendatta and with an ulterior motive to pressurize the husband and
settle score with him. Though all the Applicants are residing at
different places. It is claimed that all of them have harassed the
complainant, while she was residing with her husband as well as at her
matrimonial house.
9. Mr. Shrikant Kawade, learned Advocate appearing for
Respondent No.4 has opposed the prayers made by the Applicants.
8 32-APPLN.3301.2023-J.odt
According to him, Respondent No.4 was pressurize and traumatised by
the Applicants, since she was not preparing for the MPSC examination
and she was not a good match for her husband. According to them,
they wanted to well educated and MPSC qualified girl, who would suit
Anup. Though, she was not interested in appearing for the MPSC
examination, she was forced to prepare for the exam and attend the
classes, which is nothing short of cruelty. The Applicants have many
times assaulted her and abused her on that count. Hence, considering
that the chargesheet is already filed, the prayer of the Applicants does
not deserves consideration.
10. Mr. Dayama, learned APP for State has also opposed the
application on the ground that sufficient evidence has been collected
during the investigation, on the basis of which, chargesheet has been
filed. According to the learned APP, the statements of the complainant,
her father Vyankat Dhanrajgir Giri, her uncle-Gokulnir Dhanrajgir Giri,
her brother-Sachin Vyankat Giri and the statement of independent
witness Shri. Anil Mohanrao Karad, who is the friend of her father,
have supported the allegations made by the complainant. It is,
therefore, prayed by learned APP that the criminal application deserves
to be dismissed.
11. We have heard the respective parties and we have perused
9 32-APPLN.3301.2023-J.odt
the FIR as well as chargesheet, which is placed on record subsequently.
Sofar as the present Applicants are concerned, from the perusal of the
FIR, the allegations made against Applicant Nos.1 to 5 is that after one
year of the marriage, they have abused and assaulted the informant on
the ground that she has not qualified MPSC examination and she was
not of their standard. She was threatened that they will perform
second marriage of her husband. It is also claimed by her that she was
assaulted with the fists and blows. She was starved and mentally
harassed, eventually, she was driven out of the house by the Applicants.
12. Upon perusal of the FIR, there is no specific allegation made
against each of the Applicants. The allegations are omnibus and
common allegations are made against all the Applicants. Though, the
complainant was residing with her husband at Palghar during that
period and the Applicants were residing at different places which was
at quite a distance from Palghar, yet allegations are made that the
Applicants have assaulted and abused the complainant on the ground
that she is not well qualified and she was not a good match for her
husband. There are no specific instances or incident cited by the
complainant that would support her allegations of offences under
Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and Section 34 of the IPC.
13. It is evident from record that the husband of the complainant
10 32-APPLN.3301.2023-J.odt
had sent a notice of divorce on 19 th June 2022 and, thereafter, he has
filed Hindu marriage petition for divorce on 6 th May 2023. It is only
after filing of the divorce petition, the FIR has been filed on 21 st July
2023 by the complainant from which, it can be easily gathered that the
filing of FIR is nothing, but a tool which is used by the complainant for
pressurizing the Applicants. Upon the perusal of statement recorded by
the Investigating Officer during the investigation. It is evident that
witnesses have given statements which has similar, and monotonous.
There are no specific allegations as such against each of the Applicants.
14. The Applicants have made averment in the application that
all of them are residing at distant and different places which is far away
from Palghar where the complainant resided along with her husband-
Anup. Applicant Nos.1 to 3 are residing at Pune. Applicant No.4, who
is the cousin of Applicant No.2, is residing separately from the family
and carrying on his own business. Applicant No.5 is also residing at
Naldurga, who is not related to the husband. While Applicant No.6 is
residing at Nashik due to her service as GST Inspector. Thus,
implicating all the Applicants in the complaint is nothing, but abuse of
process of law.
15. Considering the allegations which are vague and no specific
role is attributed to each of the Applicants independently we do not
11 32-APPLN.3301.2023-J.odt
find any substance in the allegations made against the Applicants in the
FIR.
16. Sofar as allegation of offence under Section 498-A is
concerned, it is attracted only in case of husband of complainant and
his relatives. In the present case, except Applicant Nos.1 to 4, none of
them are the relatives of her husband. Even Applicant Nos.1 to 3, they
are residing at a far away place, from where they could not have
meted out any ill-treatment or subjected the complainant to cruelty as
alleged.
17. Similarly, allegations of offences under Sections 504 and 506
of the IPC are not supported by the contents of the FIR against any of
the Applicants. Similarly, Section 323 of IPC is also not attracted in the
present case, since, there is no averment to that effect in the complaint,
about voluntarily causing, hurt to the complainant. It is also not
supported by any medical certificate.
18. We do not find any substance in the allegation made against
the Applicants in the FIR as well as in the chargesheet filed against the
Applicants in R.C.C. No.132 of 2024 pending before the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur.
19. Time and again this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court
12 32-APPLN.3301.2023-J.odt
has frowned upon implication of distant relative of husband, in the
offences registered by the wife making wild accusations against them.
In a recent decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dara
Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. Vs. State of Telangana & Anr. 1, had occasion
to deal with similar circumstances, the observations made in paragraph
No.25 of the judgment reads thus:-
"25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal
case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations
indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a
well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often
a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when
domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised
and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or
particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal
prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent
misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary
harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant
Nos. 2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No. 1 have
been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial
house of appellant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 herein. Hence, they
cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an
abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations
made against each of them."
20. While commenting upon the rampant misuse of Section 498A
of IPC, which was intended to curb the cruelty against woman being
used as a tool for unleashing the personal vendatta against the husband
and his family, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that making vague
and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not
scrutinized, will lead to misuse of legal process and encouragement for
use of tactics by wife and her family. Sometimes recourse is taken to
1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682
13 32-APPLN.3301.2023-J.odt
influence Section 498-A of the IPC against the husband and his family
in order to seek compliance with unreasonable demands of a wife.
Consequently, this Court has time and again cautioned against
implicating the husband and his family, in absence of a clear prima-
facie, case against them and resultantly, the FIR filed by the wife
against the relatives of husband has been quashed and set aside.
21. In the present case, there is no prima-facie case made out
against any of the Applicants, since there is no specific allegation made
against each of the Applicants. Continuation of the criminal
proceedings against the Applicants would amount to abuse of process
of law, as has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number
of judicial pronouncements. In absence of specific role attributable to
the accused named in the FIR, it would be unjust if such persons are
forced to go through the tribulation of the trial on the basis of omnibus
allegations.
22. Thus, we are satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the
powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.. The application, therefore,
deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order is passed:-
ORDER
(i) The application stands allowed and disposed of.
14 32-APPLN.3301.2023-J.odt
(ii) The proceedings in R.C.C. No.132 of 2024, pending
before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur,
arising out of FIR bearing C.R. No.362 of 2023,
registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Latur for
the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504,
506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
stands quashed and set aside to the extent of these
Applicants.
(iii) Rule made absolute in the above terms.
[ MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]
Tauseef
