Bombay High Court
Deepak Dagadu Ahire And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 2 January, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:478-DB
1
3133.2022APPLN.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3133 OF 2022
1. Deepak Dagadu Ahire
Age : 40 years, Occ : Nil,
2. Shindubai Dagadu Ahire
Age : 68 years, Occ : Household,
3. Dagadu Bhagaji Ahire
Age : 75 years, Occ : Nil,
All r/o Khandala,
Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar.
4. Deelip Dagadu Ahire
Age : 35 years, Occ : Service,
R/o B-301, Rhythem Harmony,
Chakan Shikrapur Road,
Dist. Pune.
..APPLICANTS
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Maharashtra,
2. Sau. Sukeshani Deepak Ahire
Age : 35 years, Occ : Household,
R/o c/o Sukeshani Harishchandra Jevarikar
Karmaveer Dadasaheb Gaikwad Housing
Society, Near kranti Chowk Police Station,
Aurangabad.
..RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for the applicants : Mr.Anil H. Dhupe
APP for Respondent- State : Mr. A.D. Wange
Advocate for respondent No.2 : Mr. Shaikh A. R.
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 2nd JANUARY, 2025
2
3133.2022APPLN.odt
JUDGMENT (PER ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) :
. The present criminal application is filed under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) in order to challenge the
F.I.R. No.0069/2022 registered with Kranti Chowk Police Station,
Dist.Aurangabad on 22.03.2022, for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
(I.P.C.)
2. Subsequently, charge-sheet came to be filed in the matter,
vide Final Report No.92/2022 and Regular Criminal Case
No.1650/2022 came to be registered against the applicants, which is
pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Aurangabad. The application came to be amended in order to challenge
the said charge-sheet and criminal case.
3. Respondent No.2 is the informant. Applicant No.1 is her
husband, applicant No.2 is the mother-in-law, applicant No.3 is the
father-in-law and applicant No.4 is brother-in-law of respondent No.2.
4. On perusal of F.I.R. and upon hearing learned counsel for
the applicants for some time, we had expressed disinclination to grant
3133.2022APPLN.odt
any relief to applicant Nos.1 to 3. The learned counsel for the
applicants, on instructions, made a motion seeking to withdraw the
application for applicant Nos.1 to 3. We permitted learned counsel to
withdraw the application. Accordingly, the application is rejected with
respect to applicant Nos.1 to 3 as withdrawn.
5. As per allegations in the F.I.R., the marriage of respondent
No.2 was solemnized with applicant No.1 on 14.06.2020. The F.I.R. is
lodged on 21.03.2022 and as per the contents of F.I.R. for a period of
18 months prior to the said date, respondent No.2 is residing at her
maternal home. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that a few days after the
marriage, the in-laws of respondent No.2 started raising issues with
respect to gifts and presents given to them during the marriage. She
alleges that shortly after the marriage, her husband had suffered injury
in an accident at the residence. Respondent No.2 alleges that all the
applicants blamed her for the said accident saying that she had brought
bad omen to the house. It is alleged that applicant Nos.1 to 3 were
making a demand of dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-, however, this allegation
is not levelled against applicant No.4. The only allegation against
applicant No.4 is that he had caused mental harassment to respondent
No.2 on one occasion when his brother had met with accident in the
residential house by stating that she had brought bad omen in the
3133.2022APPLN.odt
house. Apart from this, there is no allegation against applicant No.4 in
the F.I.R. Respondent No.2 has filed affidavit in reply opposing the
application, wherein also no specific allegations have been levelled
against applicant No.4.
6. In absence of any allegations in the F.I.R. and as also
statements of other witnesses in the charge-sheet which were perused
with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing in the matter, we
are of the considered opinion that continuation of criminal prosecution
against applicant No.4 will be abuse of process of law. We find that
there is absolutely no allegation worth mentioning against applicant
No.4 in order to attract the ingredients of Section 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code or even to remotely suggest common intention in order to
attract Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal prosecution
against applicant No.4, therefore, deserves to be quashed. Hence, we
pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) The application is partly allowed.
(ii) The application with respect to applicant Nos.1 to 3 is rejected as
withdrawn.
(iii) F.I.R. No.0069/2022 registered with Kranti Chowk Police
3133.2022APPLN.odt
Station, Dist. Aurangabad City on 22.03.2022, for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, Charge-Sheet No.92/2022 and Regular Criminal
Case No.1650/2022 pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Aurangabad are hereby quashed against applicant No.4 -
Deelip Dagadu Ahire.
[ROHIT W. JOSHI] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
JUDGE JUDGE
sga/
