Bombay High Court
Babasaheb Tukaram Gadale And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 7 January, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:1994-DB
1 cri.appln-2552-2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2552 OF 2023
1. Babasaheb S/o Tukaram Gadale (father-in-law)
Age-58 years, Occu : Retired Teacher
2. Triveni W/o Babasaheb Gadale (Mother-in-law)
Age-50 years, Occu: Household
3. Rajesh S/o Babasaheb Gadale (Brother-in-law)
Age-31 years, Occu: Education
All R/o- "Matoshri Sadan", Near Vishwanath Karad
College, Beed Road, Kaij,
Tq. Kaij, Dist.-Beed ...Applicants
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Maharashtra
For Kaij Police Station Kaij,
Tq.-Kaij,Dist.-Beed
2. Pratiksha W/o Sanjay Gadale
Age:26 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o C/o. Yuvraj Neharkar
R/o. Bhavani Chouk, Dharur Road, Kaij,
Tq.-Kaij, Dist.-Beed ...Respondents
...
Advocate for the Applicant : Mr. Amol S. Gandhi
A.P.P. for Respondent/State : Mr. S. A. Gaikwad
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. H. P. Jadhav
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 7th JANUARY, 2025, 2024.
2 cri.appln-2552-2023.odt
JUDGMENT (PER ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) :
1. The applicants in the present matter are father-in-law, mother-in-
law and brother-in-law of respondent No.2- informant. Respondent
No.2 has lodged FIR No.365 dated 20.06.2023 against her husband-
Sanjay Gadale and the present applicants for the offences punishable
under Sections 377, 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961. Husband of respondent No.2 who is principal accused is not
a party to the present proceedings. The allegations against present
applicants are with respect to all sections mentioned in FIR except
Section 377.
2. The marriage of respondent No.2 was solemnized with Sanjay
Gadale on 25.05.2022. The allegations in the FIR are principally against
the husband. The same pertain to Section 377 of IPC. Respondent No.2
had alleged that she had narrated the painful incidents and her ordeal
to applicant No.2, her mother-in-law. However, she did not pay any
attention to it and rather threatened that if she wishes to stay in the
family she should fulfill all the demands of accused No.1, i.e., her
husband. As regards the demand for dowry, it is alleged that the
husband of respondent No.2 and applicants used to demand a sum of
Rs.25 lakhs for the purpose of starting a showroom for her husband.
3 cri.appln-2552-2023.odt
She alleges that after a period of around one year she was expeled from
the matrimonial home on 14.05.2023.
3. During the course of hearing of the matter we had expressed that
the application may be rejected with respect to applicant Nos.1 and 2,
i.e., the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively. The learned
Counsel for the applicants sought instructions and made a statement for
withdrawal of application with respect to applicant Nos.1 and 2.
4. The matter was heard on merits fully with respect to the case of
applicant No.3. The learned Counsel for the applicants submits that
applicant No.3 is brother-in-law of respondent No2. He states that
applicant No.3 is not concerned with the inter se relationship between
respondent No.2 and her husband. As regards the alleged demand for
dowry, he states that the allegations against applicant No.3 are
absolutely vague and without any particulars. He points out that
generic words such as mental and physical harassment have been used
in order to unnecessarily implicate the applicant No.3.
5. Per contra, Shri. S. A. Gaikwad, learned A.P.P. and Mr. H. P.
Jadhav, appearing for respondent No.2 submits that allegations against
respondent No.3 are also specific that he had also made demand of
4 cri.appln-2552-2023.odt
Rs.25 lakhs along with his brother and parents.
6. Upon perusal of the FIR and other material on record we agree
with the learned Counsel for the applicants that the FIR does not
attribute any positive role in specific terms to applicant No.3. The
allegations against him are way to general and absolutely vague. It is
now well settled that vague and general allegations, particularly against
relatives of husband are not sufficient to sustain prosecution against
them for the offence under Section 498-A. We are of the opinion that
respondent No.2 has unnecessarily implicated applicant No.3, brother
of her estranged husband.
7. Having regard to the material on record, we are of the
considered opinion that there is absolutely no case against applicant
No.3. Continuation of prosecution against applicant No.3 therefore the
abuse of the legal process, it will therefore needs to be quashed in
exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Hence we pass the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The application is disposed of as withdrawn with respect to
applicant No.1- Babasaheb S/o Tukaram Gadale and
5 cri.appln-2552-2023.odt
applicant No2- Triveni W/o Babasaheb Gadale.
(ii) The application is allowed with respect to applicant No.3,
Rajesh S/o Babasaheb Gadale and accordingly FIR No.365
of 2023 dated 20.06.2023 for the offences punishable under
Sections 377, 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 registered with Kaij Police Station, Tq.-
Kaij, Dist.-Beed and Regular Criminal Case No.387 of 2023
are quashed against him.
[ROHIT W. JOSHI] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
JUDGE JUDGE
A.G.Narwade
