Bombay High Court
Kiran Ganesh Ahire And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 7 January, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:1120-DB
1
3003.2022APPLN.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3003 OF 2022
1. Kiran S/o Ganesh Ahire
Age : 29 years, Occ : Nil,
2. Ganesh S/o Limbaji Ahire
Age : 60 years, Occ : Nil,
3. Laxmibai W/o Ganesh Ahire
Age : 55 years, Occ : Household,
4. Kailas S/o Ganesh Ahire
Age : 32 years, Occ : Pvt. Service,
5. Sagar S/o Ganesh Ahire
Age : 30 years, Occ : Pvt. Service,
6. Shital W/o Kailas Ahire
Age : 26 years, Occ : Household,
7. Rohini W/o Sagar Ahire
Age : 27 years, Occ : Household,
All R/o Yashodhara Chaal,
Committee-2,
Ramabai Ambedkar Nagar,
Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai. ..APPLICANTS
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector,
Police Station, Badnapur,
Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna.
2. Sow. Ashwini W/o Kiran Ahire
Age : 21 years, Occ : Household,
R/o Yashodhara Chaal, Nalanda Nagar,
Vasantrao Naik Marg, Ghatkopar (East),
Mumbai at present R/o Dhopateshwar,
Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna.
..RESPONDENTS
2
3003.2022APPLN.odt
...
Advocate for the applicants : Mr. Y.L. Bidve h/f Mr.S.V. Salunke
APP for Respondent- State : Mr. A.M. Phule
Advocates for respondent No.2 : Mr.R.C. Bora and Mr.S.A. Pathan
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 7th JANUARY, 2025024.
JUDGMENT (PER ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) :
. The applicants in the present matter have invoked our
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (Cr.P.C.), inter alia, praying to quash F.I.R. No.363/2022
dated 20.07.2022 registered against them with Badnapur Police
Station, Dist. Jalna, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,
323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and
sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as well as Charge-Sheet
No.175/2022 dated 14.09.2022 and Regular Criminal Case
No.225/2022 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Badnapur, Dist. Jalna.
2. Respondent No.2 is the informant. Respondent No.2 -
informant is related to the applicants as under :-
(i) Applicant No.1 - husband
(ii) Applicant No.2 - father-in-law
3003.2022APPLN.odt
(iii) Applicant No.3 - mother-in-law
(iv) Applicant No.4 - brother-in-law
(v) Applicant No.5 - brother-in-law
(vi) Applicant No.6 - wife of applicant No.4
(vii) Applicant No.7 - wife of applicant No.5
3. The marriage of respondent No.2 was solemnized with
applicant No.1 on 29.10.2020. As per contents of F.I.R. respondent No.2
was treated well by her in-laws for a period of around three months.
She alleges that after initial period of three months, in-laws started
harassing her. The allegation against applicant No.1 - husband is that
he used to speak ill about her stating that she does not know any work.
She is not adequately educated and also lame lady. It is also alleged
that he used to beat her intermediately. Respondent No.2 alleges that
on 10.02.2021, applicant No.1 started quarrel by shouting at her and
said that he does not like her and she should immediately leave the
matrimonial house. Respondent No.2 alleges that applicant Nos.2 to 6
used to instigate applicant No.1 to desert respondent No.2 and instigate
him to remarry some other girl. Respondent No.2 states that she had
informed about the said incident dated 10.02.2021 to her parents. She
states that on the same day i.e. on 10.02.2021 her parents had called
her at Shahid Hall in Mumbai. She states that her in-laws were also
3003.2022APPLN.odt
requested to come to said Hall by her parents. According to her, during
the course of the meeting held on 10.02.2021 at Shahid Hall her
parents and other relatives requested the applicants to treat respondent
No.2 properly and to live together happily. She states that in-laws
agreed that they will behave properly and took her with them for
residing together. She alleges that thereafter in-laws again started
harassing her and on 18.02.2022 at about 2.00 p.m., they asked her to
get a gold chain, a motorcycle and Rs.2,00,000/- from her parents and
forcibly evicted her from the house asking to return only when she
comes with said amount and articles. Since 18.02.2022, respondent
No.2 is residing with her parents.
4. Learned counsel Mr. Y.L. Bidve h/f Mr.S.V. Salunke for the
applicants contends that the allegations are levelled with an ulterior
motive to browbeat the in-laws for succumbing in to settlement and
part with exorbitant amount, which is claimed by respondent No.2. He
states that the matter was amicably settled between applicant No.1 and
respondent No.2 before Lok Adalat in Domestic Violence Proceeding on
22.03.2022. However, applicant No.1 could not arrange the money
payable to respondent No.2 in terms of the settlement, and therefore,
he filed a petition seeking divorce from respondent No.2 on
04.04.2022. He would submit that the F.I.R. is lodged only with a view
3003.2022APPLN.odt
to filing of divorce petition by applicant No.1, being H.M.P.
No.46/2022. He would then contend that the allegations in the F.I.R.
are general and omnibus in nature and as such not enough to make out
prima facie case for trial against the applicants.
5. Per contra, Mr. A.M. Phule, learned APP appearing for
respondent No.1 would contend that respondent No.2 has levelled a
specific allegation in the F.I.R. by mentioning dates as also time. He
would submit that in view of the clear allegations in the F.I.R. which are
further supported by the statements of witnesses, the applicants will
have to face the trial and at this stage, it can not be said that the
offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is not made out.
6. Learned counsel Mr.R.C. Bora h/f Advocate Mr.S.A. Pathan
for respondent No.2 advanced the submissions on similar lines. He
states that the mindset of applicant No.1 is apparent from the fact that
he did not honour the settlement arrived at before the Lok Adalat and
proceeded to file a petition for divorce anticipating that respondent
No.2 would set criminal law in motion in view of the harassment that
was meted out to her.
7. After hearing rival submissions for some time, we had
3003.2022APPLN.odt
expressed that applicant Nos.1 to 3 may not be entitled to any relief. In
view of this, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the
applicants sought instructions and made a statement on instructions
seeking to withdraw the application with respect to applicant Nos.1 to
3. We have permitted applicant Nos.1 to 3 to withdraw the application,
which stands disposed of against them accordingly.
8. We have heard the rival submissions on merits qua
applicant Nos.4 to 7. Applicant Nos.4 and 5 are brothers-in-law of
respondent No.2. Applicant Nos.6 and 7 are their wives. Perusal of the
F.I.R. will demonstrates that the principal allegations are against
Applicant Nos.1 to 3. There are no specific allegations against applicant
Nos.4 to 7. Respondent No.2 has alleged that on 10.02.2021, applicant
No.1 was abusing her unnecessarily and at that time, all applicant
Nos.2 to 7 told him that he should not live with respondent No.2 and
should grant divorce to her. She alleges that she was beaten up by the
in-laws and abused on 10.02.2021 and expelled from the house. Abuse
allegedly hurled by applicant Nos.2 to 7 are not mentioned. Apart from
this, person specific allegations are not levelled. The allegations are
general in nature. Thereafter, in relation to incident dated 18.02.2022,
she has not named any of the applicants. She has only stated that the
in-laws had made demand for gold chain, a motorcycle and
3003.2022APPLN.odt
Rs.2,00,000/- and had forced her to leave the house.
9. We find that applicant Nos.4 and 5 are brothers of the
husband of respondent No.2 and applicant Nos.6 and 7 are their wives.
The allegations against these applicants are not specific. They are
general in nature. As regards the incident dated 10.02.2021, the
allegation suggests that all the applicants had hurled abuses in chorus
and had beaten up respondent No.2, which in a sense unbelievable. As
regards applicant Nos.4 to 7 it appears to be a case of over implication.
It is apparent from the allegations in the F.I.R. that applicant No.1
husband had some issues with respect to the looks, educational
qualification etc of his wife-respondent No.2, resulting in marital
discord between them. The intent to implicate all the family members
is apparent in view of the allegations that have been levelled. We find
that the contents of the F.I.R. and material gathered during the course
of investigation are not sufficient to force applicant Nos.4 to 7 to
undergo hardship of facing a criminal trial. Continuation of criminal
case against applicant Nos.4 to 7 is not warranted in view of the
allegations in the F.I.R. which are general in nature with respect to
them as also the statements recorded during the course of
investigation, which also do not ascribe any specific positive act to
them. The F.I.R. and criminal case against applicant Nos.4 to 7 are
3003.2022APPLN.odt
therefore, liable to be quashed. Hence we pass the following order :-
ORDER
(i) The application stands disposed of with respect to applicant
No.1- Kiran S/o Ganesh Ahire, applicant No.2 - Ganesh S/o Limbaji
Ahire and applicant No.3 - Laxmibai W/o Ganesh Ahire as withdrawn.
(ii) The application stands allowed with respect to applicant Nos.4 to
7.
(iii) F.I.R. No.363/2022 dated 20.07.2022 registered with Badnapur
Police Station, Dist. Jalna, for the offences punishable under Sections
498-A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as well as Charge-Sheet
No.175/2022 dated 14.09.2022 and Regular Criminal Case
No.225/2022 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Badnapur, Dist. Jalna, are hereby quashed against applicant
No.4 - Kailas S/o Ganesh Ahire, applicant No.5 - Sagar S/o Ganesh
Ahire, applicant No.6 - Shital W/o Kailas Ahire and applicant No.7 -
Rohini W/o Sagar Ahire.
[ROHIT W. JOSHI] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
JUDGE JUDGE
sga/
