Bombay High Court
Pawan Trimbak Salunke And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 2 January, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:477-DB
1
3347.2023APPLN.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3347 OF 2023
1. Pawan Trimbak Salunke
Age : 24 years, Occ : Agri.,
R/o Nagapur (Khurd),
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
2. Trimbak S/o Keshav Salunke
Age : 68 years, Occ : Agri.,
R/o As above.
3. Sita W/o Trimbak Salunke
Age : 65 years, Occ : Household,
R/o As above.
4. Rohini W/o Datta Kadam
Age : 38 years, Occ : Household,
R/o Malasjawala,
Tq. & Dist.Beed.
5. Gita W/o Sidheshwar Ghadge
Age : 35 years, Occ : Household,
R/o Near Zunjarneta Press
Malives, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.
6. Seema W/o Arun Raut
Age : 31 years, Occ : Household,
R/o Malasjawala,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
7. Arun Khanderao Raut
Age : 37 years, Occ : Agri.,
R/o Malasjawala,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
..APPLICANTS
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector
Dharur Police Station,
Tq. Dharur, Dist. Beed.
2
3347.2023APPLN.odt
2. Mandakini W/o Pawan Salunke
Age : 22 years, Occ : Household,
At present R/o Dhunkawad No.1,
Tq. Dharur, Dist. Beed.
..RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for the applicants : Mr.N.L. Jadhav
APP for Respondent- State : Mrs. R.P. Gour
Advocate for respondent No.2 : Mr. S.R. Kedar
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 2nd JANUARY, 2025
JUDGMENT (PER ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) :
. The applicants in the present matter are husband, father-
in-law, mother-in-law, married sisters-in-law and husband of one of the
married sisters-in-law of respondent No.2.
2. The marriage of respondent No.2 was solemnized with
applicant no.1 on 11.06.2020. Respondent No.2 has lodged F.I.R.
against applicants, being F.I.R. No.193/2023 with Dharur Police
Station, Tq.Dharur, Dist.Beed on 24.06.2023, for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and Section 4 of the Prohibition of
Dowry Act, 1961. The applicants have filed the present application
seeking quashment of the said F.I.R. so also the Charge-Sheet
3347.2023APPLN.odt
No.108/2023 dated 18.07.2023 and Regular Criminal Case
No.114/2023 registered pursuant to the said F.I.R., which is pending for
adjudication before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Dharur.
3. Respondent No.2 has stated in the F.I.R. that her marriage
with applicant No.1 was solemnized on 11.06.2020 and after a period
of around 15 days from the date of marriage, applicant No.1/husband
started doubting her character and as consequence of this, he started
harassing her physically as well as mentally. She alleges that applicant
No.1 used to beat her on account of such doubt and when she brought
this fact to the notice of her parents-in-law i.e. applicant Nos.2 and 3
and other applicants, she was shocked to find that they did not find any
fault with applicant No.1, but rather stated that her parents did not
offer appropriate presents to the in-laws during the marriage and had
given negligible amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry. She alleges
that the applicants asked her to bring Rs.4,00,000/- from her parents in
order to enable applicant No.1 to start business of retail sale of
electrical goods. She alleges that on 30.05.2023, applicant No.1 had
called her brother Gorakh asking her father to come to the house.
Accordingly, her father came to her house at around 12 noon on
30.05.2023. She alleges that applicant Nos.1 to 3 asked for a sum of
3347.2023APPLN.odt
Rs.4,00,000/- for starting the business of sale of electrical goods and
also that they had beaten her infront of her father and brother while
making demand of dowry. She also alleges that when her brother and
father intervened, applicant No.1 charged at them with stick in his
hand.
4. During the course of investigation, statements of father,
mother, brother and two relatives of respondent No.2 have been
recorded.
5. At the outset we state that the present application was
dismissed as withdrawn with respect to applicant No.1, vide order
dated 01.11.2023.
6. As regards applicant Nos.2 and 3, F.I.R. contains a specific
allegation regarding demand of dowry of Rs.4,00,000/-. The allegation
pertaining to the incident dated 30.05.2023 where demand of dowry
was made in presence of father and brother of respondent No.2 and
applicant Nos.1 to 3 had also beaten respondent No.2 in presence of
her father and brother is a specific allegation. The date, time and
particulars have been mentioned in the F.I.R. It is also alleged that after
the said incident, applicant No.1 had removed all the ornaments that
3347.2023APPLN.odt
respondent No.2 was wearing and had forced her to leave the house
along with her father and brother. This incident had allegedly occurred
in presence of applicant Nos.2 and 3. In view of the aforesaid specific
allegations in the F.I.R. which also find place in the statements of the
witnesses recorded by the prosecution, we find that this is not a fit case
for quashing of F.I.R. or criminal prosecution with respect to applicant
Nos.2 and 3. The correctness or otherwise of the allegations can not be
tested in the present proceedings filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
7. As regards applicant Nos.4 to 6, they are married sisters-in-
law of respondent No.2. Applicant No.7 is husband of applicant No.6.
Perusal of F.I.R. and statements of the witnesses will demonstrate that
there are no specific allegations of harassment, illtreatment or cruelty
against them. The only statement in the F.I.R. is that applicant Nos.4 to
7 had also stated that parents of respondent No.2 did not incur
appropriate expenditure in the marriage and had asked her to bring an
amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from her parents in order to enable applicant
No.1 to start his business. However, the tentative period of alleged
demand, place of demand and such particulars are pertinently absent in
the F.I.R. It is not clear as to whether demand was made by all of them
together or individually. The allegation is absolutely vague. It appears
that due to strained relationship with applicant No.1, his sisters and
3347.2023APPLN.odt
husband of one of the sisters is sought to be implicated in the matter. It
is now well settled that the relatives of husband should not be forced to
face criminal prosecution under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code
unless there are clear and specific allegations in the F.I.R. and
statements of the witnesses indicating commission of offence. In the
present case, the allegations are absolutely vague and lacking in all
material particulars. In view of the settled legal position by catena of
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also this Court, we are of
the considered opinion that the allegations in the F.I.R. and statements
of family members and relatives of respondent No.2 recorded during
the course of investigation are grossly insufficient to make out offence
under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against applicant Nos.4
to 7. We are therefore inclined to allow the application with respect to
applicant Nos.4 to 7. Hence, we pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) The application is partly allowed.
(ii) The application is disposed of as withdrawn against applicant
No.1 - Pawan Trimbak Salunke.
(iii) The application with respect to applicant No.2-Trimbak S/o
Keshav Salunke and applicant No.3 - Sita W/o Trimbak Salunkeand is
rejected.
3347.2023APPLN.odt
(iv) F.I.R. No.193/2023 registered with Dharur Police Station,
Tq.Dharur, Dist.Beed on 24.06.2023, for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 4 of the Prohibition of Dowries Act, 1961, Charge-
Sheet No.108/2023 dated 18.07.2023 and Regular Criminal Case
No.114/2023 pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Dharur, are hereby quashed against applicant No.4 - Rohini
W/o Datta Kadam, applicant No.5 - Gita W/o Sidheshwar Ghadge,
applicant No.6 - Seema W/o Arun Raut and applicant No.7 - Arun
Khanderao Raut.
[ROHIT W. JOSHI] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
JUDGE JUDGE
sga/
