[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Mrs. Shilpa W/O Dharmraj Roy vs State Of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Ps Aheri, ... on 5 December, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:13582-DB
Judgment
510 apl156.20
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.156 OF 2020
Mrs.Shilpa w/o Dharmraj Roy,
aged about 30 years,
r/o Chamorshi, district Gadchiroli. ..... Applicant.
:: V E R S U S ::
The State of Maharashtra,
through its Police Station Officer,
Police Station Aheri,
district Gadchiroli. ..... Non-applicant.
Shri R.M.Daga, Counsel for the Applicant
Shri N.B.Jawade, Addl.P.P. for the NA/State.
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE &
NANDESH S.DESHPANDE, JJ.
CLOSED ON : 01/12/2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 05/12/2025
JUDGMENT ( Per : Urmila Joshi-Phalke)
1. Heard learned counsel Shri R.M.Daga for the
applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri
N.B.Jawade for the State. Admit. Heard finally by
consent of learned counsel for parties.
.....2/-
Judgment
510 apl156.20
2. The present application is preferred by the
applicant, who is accused No.3, under Section 482 of the
CrPC for quashing of FIR in connection with Crime
No.65/2019 initially registered under Sections 120-B,
307, and 326-A read with 34 of the IPC and subsequently
converted under Section 302 of the IPC.
3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the
application, are as under:
One Samadhan Kasture, lodged a report with
Aheri Police Station alleging that during intervening night
of 14.3.2019 and 15.3.2019, at about 2:00 am, when he
was sleeping in house, three unknown persons entered
into his house and insisted him to consume liquid, which
was with them in a bottle. On refusal by him, the same
was thrown on his person, due to which he sustained
burn injuries on his entire body. On the basis of the said
report, the police registered the crime against other two
.....3/-
Judgment
510 apl156.20
co-accused. During investigation, it revealed to the
investigating officer that there was illicit relationship
between the applicant and the deceased and, therefore,
accused No.1, who is husband of the applicant, entered
into conspiracy with the applicant and other co-accused
and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, threw the acid on
the person of the deceased as she did not want to
continue the relationship with the deceased and thereby
committed his murder. On the basis of the said
investigation, chargesheet is also filed against the
applicant and other co-accused.
4. By this application, the applicant is seeking
quashing of the FIR as well as consequent proceeding
arising out of the same bearing Sessions Case
No.86/2019.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted
that except the allegation, that there was illicit
.....4/-
Judgment
510 apl156.20
relationship between the applicant and the deceased,
there is absolutely no material to show that she was part
of conspiracy. He submitted that statement of the
deceased, recorded prior to his death, also nowhere
discloses that there was illicit relationship between him
and the applicant. During investigation, the investigating
officer recorded statements of witnesses. From the said
statements of witnesses, especially statement of Saurabh
Haldar shows that on enquiry by him with the deceased,
the deceased disclosed that he got acquaintance with the
applicant through one Amruta Sarkar and they are only
friends and nothing more than that.
He also invited our attention towards
statement of Shiwani Goldar and submitted that even
accepting her statement, there is nothing on record to
show that the applicant is having any animus to eliminate
the deceased. Merely because she is wife of the co-
.....5/-
Judgment
510 apl156.20
accused, on baseless allegations, she is arraigned as
accused.
As far as conspiracy is concerned, there is
absolutely no material to connect the applicant with the
alleged offence as, even, no circumstantial evidence is on
record to disclose that she is part of the conspiracy.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State strongly opposed the application
and submitted that the entire case is based on
circumstantial evidence. The statements of witnesses
disclose that there was acquaintance between the
applicant and the deceased. As the husband of the
applicant was in jail, she developed relationship with the
deceased and when her husband was about to be released
from the jail, she wanted to end the said relationship and,
therefore, with the help of her husband and other co-
accused, she eliminated the deceased.
.....6/-
Judgment
510 apl156.20
Thus, considering the statement of Shiwani,
prima facie case is made out against the applicant and,
therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.
7. After hearing both the sides and perusing the
entire investigation papers, it reveals that chargesheet is
filed against the applicant on allegation that she was
having illicit relationship with the deceased when her
husband was in jail. Her husband was about to be
released from the jail and, therefore, she was not
intending to continue the said relationship and the
deceased was insisting her to meet him and, therefore,
with the help of husband, she has committed murder of
the deceased.
8. It is pertinent to note that the prosecution case
itself is that there was no good relationship between
accused No.1 Dharmraj Roy and the applicant.
.....7/-
Judgment
510 apl156.20
9. Statement of the deceased was recorded prior
to his death, which shows that there was only
acquaintance between him and the applicant and not
more than that.
10. During the investigation, various statements
were recorded by the investigating officer. None of
statements discloses that the applicant was intending to
eliminate the deceased as she does not want to continue
the said relationship.
On the contrary, statement of Saurabh Haldar
shows that the deceased once disclosed him that he is
having friendship with the applicant and not more than
that. His statement further states that co-accused
enquired the applicant as to her relationship and she also
disclosed that she is only having acquaintance with the
deceased and no such relationship is there.
.....8/-
Judgment
510 apl156.20
Even, if the statement of Shiwani is taken into
consideration, it shows that the applicant once disclosed
her that she has informed the deceased that now her
husband is about to be released from jail and she cannot
continue the relationship with him. Even, accepting the
said statement as it is, it nowhere discloses that there was
illicit relationship between the deceased and the applicant
and she was involved in conspiracy.
11. Admittedly, no direct evidence would be
available as far as conspiracy is concerned, but there has
to be at least some material to show that the applicant
was member of the said conspiracy and there was
agreement between them. On the contrary, summary of
the chargesheet itself shows that there was no good
relationship between the applicant and the co-accused
Dharmraj, who is her husband.
.....9/-
Judgment
510 apl156.20
12. Thus, the entire chargesheet is based on
circumstantial evidence.
13. It is trite law that to hold accused guilty on the
basis of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must
establish each of circumstances on which it proposes to
rely and circumstances relied upon must be of a definite
tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of accused and
must form a chain so far complete that there is no escape
from conclusion that within all human probability, it is
accused and no one else who had committed the crime
and it must exclude all other hypothesis inconsistent with
his guilt and consistent with his innocence.
14. By applying the above said law to the present
case in hand, from the entire chargesheet, it would show
that not a single circumstance is on record to show that
the applicant is involved either in criminal conspiracy or
in eliminating the deceased.
.....10/-
Judgment
510 apl156.20
15. The law relating to quashing of FIRs was
explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State
of Haryana and ors vs. Bhajan Lal and ors, reported in
1992 Supplementary (1) SCC 335 wherein principles
have been laid down which are required to be
considered while considering applications for quashing
of the FIRs, which read as under:
"(a) 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;
(b) where the allegations in the First
Information Report and other materials, if
any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investi-
.....11/-
Judgment
510 apl156.20
gation by police officers under Section 156(1)
of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code;
(c) 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;
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code;
.....12/-
Judgment
510 apl156.20
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused;
(f) where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code
or the concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress
for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
.....13/-
Judgment
510 apl156.20
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him due
to private and personal grudge".
16. By applying the aforesaid principles to the
present case is hand, as, at this stage, no prima facie
case is made out against the applicant, the applicant has
made out a case for quashing of the FIR.
17. In this view of the matter, the application
deserves to be allowed, as per order below:
ORDER
(1) The Criminal Application is allowed.
(2) The FIR in connection with Crime No.65/2019
initially registered under Sections 120-B, 307, and 326-A
read with 34 of the IPC and subsequently converted under
Section 302 of the IPC and the subsequent proceeding
arising out of the same bearing Sessions Case No.86/2019
.....14/-
Judgment
510 apl156.20
are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of
applicant Shilpa w/o Dharmraj Roy.
Application stands disposed of.
(NANDESH S.DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
!! BrWankhede !!
Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../-
Date: 05/12/2025 16:33:34
