Bombay High Court
Yashodabai Devidas Baisane And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 8 January, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:1855-DB
1
3592.2024APPLN.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3592 OF 2024
1. Yashodabai Devidas Baisane
Age : 65 years, Occ : Household,
R/o 25, Sakri Road, Navajivan English
High School New
Sai Ekta Nagar, Dhule
District Dhule 424 001
2. Devidas Narayan Baisane
Age : 70 years, Occ : Retd.
R/o 25, Sakri Road, Navajivan English
High School New
Sai Ekta Nagar, Dhule
District Dhule 424 001
3. Rajendra Devidas Baisane
Age : 44 years, Occ : Service,
R/o 25, Sakri Road, Navajivan English
High School New
Sai Ekta Nagar, Dhule
District Dhule 424 001
4. Meena Ramesh More
Age : 47 years, Occ : Household,
R/o 25, Sakri Road, Navajivan English
High School New
Sai Ekta Nagar, Dhule
District Dhule 424 001
5. Anil Ananda Sonawane
Age : 56 years, Occ : Agri.,
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Putala
Jahangirpura Erandol,
Tq. Erandol, Dist. Jalgaon 425109
6. Ashok Namdev Salunkhe
Age : 70 years, Occ : Agri.,
At Post. Gandhili, Tq. Amalner,
Dist. Jalgaon 425420
..APPLICANTS
2
3592.2024APPLN.odt
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Sub-Inspector,
Dhule Police Station, Dhule,
Tq. Dhule, Dist. Dhule.
2. Kajal Rahul Baisane
Age : 30 years, Occ : Household,
R/o Plot no.25A, Swami Dayanand Housing
Society, Sakri Road, Deur Budruk,
Dhule, Tq. & Dist. Dhule.
..RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for the applicants : Mr. R.W. Baul
APP for Respondent- State : Mr. A.R. Kale
Advocate for respondent No.2 : Mr. Akram Inamdar (Appointed)
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 8th JANUARY, 2025., 2024.
JUDGMENT (PER ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) :
. The present application is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) praying to quash F.I.R.
No.74/2019 registered against applicants on 02.03.2019 with Dhule
City Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 143,
147, 149, 323, 504, 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.).
2. The said F.I.R. is lodged by respondent no.2. Applicant
Nos.1 to 4 are related to respondent no.2 as mother-in-law, father-in-
law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively. Applicant Nos.5 and 6
3592.2024APPLN.odt
are the husbands of sisters-in-law of respondent no.2. Rahul Baisane
has died on 22.11.2019. The applicants alleged that Rahul Baisane,
husband of respondent no.2 committed suicide due to mental distress
and harassment caused by respondent no.2 by resorting to vexatious
and frivolous litigation against her husband- the deceased. Respondent
No.2 has stated in the FIR that she had filed a domestic violence case
seeking maintenance against her husband at Dhule. On 28.02.2019, she
was present in Dhule Court premises along with her father and brother
to attend the domestic violence case, which was fixed on that date. She
has stated that her husband did not turn up in the Court on the said
date and after the next date was given, while they were still in the
Court premises, her husband and the present applicants came there and
started beating her father and brother and when she intervened, she
was also beaten up by them. She then states that due to the chaotic
situation, the people in the Court premises intervened and saved them.
Based on these allegations, respondent no.1 has registered the above
FIR and after completion of investigation has filed Charge-Sheet
No.69/2020 on 30.06.2020. Pursuant to which, S.C.C. No.1566/2020
came to be registered and is pending adjudication before the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhule.
3. We have heard Mr.R.W. Bagul, learned counsel for the
3592.2024APPLN.odt
applicants. He states that since there was matrimonial discord between
respondent no.2 and her husband, she has implicated all the family
members of her estranged husband by lodging false FIR. He states that
the contents of FIR are most unbelievable and improbable. He also
draws our attention to the fact that applicant nos.5 and 6 are residents
of Erandol and Amalner respectively. He has further submitted that
although the incident is stated to be occurred in the Court premises
where many persons were present, respondent no.1 could not find any
single independent witness. He points out that the investigating officer
has merely recorded statements of respondent no.2, her parents and
brother and her uncle, Prakash Khanderao Wagh, who has stated that
he learnt about the alleged incident from his brother Prabhakar i.e.
father of respondent no.2. He states that since the incident had never
occurred, the prosecution could not find single independent witness. He
has also referred to FIR to contend that the allegations are lacking in
material particulars and rather absolutely vague and omnibus in nature.
Specific role is not attributed to any of the applicants.
4. As against this, Shri A.R. Kale, learned APP appearing for
respondent no.1 and Shri Akram Inamdar, learned appointed counsel
for respondent no.2 contend that the FIR discloses cognizable offence
and as such, the present application should be rejected since the
3592.2024APPLN.odt
correctness of allegations cannot be adjudicated in the present
proceedings.
5. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of the
record of the case, we find that allegation in the FIR is that at about
4:30 p.m., the present applicants and deceased husband of respondent
no.2 had beaten up respondent no.2, her father and brother. It is
undisputed that there was matrimonial discord between respondent
no.2 and her deceased husband. All the family members of the
estranged husband have been implicated in the matter. Applicant Nos.5
and 6 are not residents of Dhule. The mother-in-law and father-in-law
of respondent no.2 are senior citizens, who were around 60 and 65
years old approximately on the date of incident. Applicant No.4, who is
married sister-in-law, is also implicated in the matter along with the
husbands of other two sisters-in-law. What is surprising is that although
the incident is alleged to have occurred in bright day-light during Court
working hours, the investigating officer could not find a single
independent witness in support of allegations in the FIR. Charge-Sheet
also does not indicate that the victims of offence i.e. respondent no.2,
her father and brother were referred for medical examination although
there is allegation of sustained assault although not by means of any
weapon. Allegations in the FIR are not confidence inspiring. Story in
3592.2024APPLN.odt
the FIR appears to be concocted.
6. Having regard to the material collected during the course
of investigation, we find that the material on record is absolutely
inadequate for drawing home the charge. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held in the cases of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and others Vs.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others reported in AIR 1988 SC
709 and Satish Mehra Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi and others reported
in AIR 2013 SC 506 that if the material collected during the course of
investigation is very scanty and grossly inadequate to establish the
charge and is of such nature that the prosecution appears to be bound
to fail, it will be just and valid ground for quashing of criminal
proceeding.
7. We must also take notice of the fact that there was marital
discord between respondent no.2 and her husband. They were
contesting several litigation against each other. The principles that are
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in appreciation of material in
matrimonial disputes need to be taken notice of and applied in the facts
of the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned in the
matter of Preeti Gupta and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and others
reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 that pragmatic realities in matrimonial
3592.2024APPLN.odt
dispute should be taken into consideration while dealing with criminal
cases arising out of matrimonial discord. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
has taken notice of phenomenal rise in criminal cases arising out of
matrimonial discord whereof the family members and near relatives of
the husband are implicated in the criminal cases. In the matter of G.V.
Rao Vs. L.H.V. Prasad and others reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken note of outburst in matrimonial
disputes where elders in the family, who can mediate to resolve the
matrimonial discord, was also arrayed as accused. In the case of
Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others
reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 127, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
directed that due care and caution should be exercised while dealing
with cases which prima facie appeared to be frivolous and vexatious
and in the backdrop of matrimonial dispute, it is held that in such
cases, the Court dealing with petition for quashing of FIR should not
restrict itself to reading the contents of FIR alone. It is held that in such
cases parties often exercise due care and caution to draft FIRs in order
to make out all the ingredients of the offence/s. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has, therefore, directed that the contents of the FIR should be
viewed in the light of other surrounding circumstances. It is further
held that general and omnibus allegations must be ignored. Similar
view is also expressed in the matter of Dara Lakhshmi Narayana and
3592.2024APPLN.odt
others Vs. State of Telangana in S.LP. (Cri.) No.16239/2024. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has again directed that due care and caution
should be exercised by the High Courts in order to prevent abuse of
criminal law.
8. Although the above judgments are delivered with respect
to cases under Section 498-A of the IPC, we are of the considered
opinion that ratio thereof can also be applied to the present case, which
also arises out of matrimonial discord. In the present case also, all the
family members of the estranged husband have been implicated. The
allegations in the FIR need to be viewed in the backdrop of the fact that
not a single independent witness could be found although the incident
is alleged to have occurred in the Court premises during the court
working hours. It is also important to note that the alleged incident is
not stated to have occurred in a secluded or remote place in the Court
premises. Perusal of spot panchnama demonstrates that spot of alleged
incident is right in the middle of Court premises and immediately
infront of main gate. The spot panchnama shows existence of two court
buildings in the vicinity on the northern and eastern side and main gate
exactly infront of the spot of alleged incident on the western side. The
fact that independent witnesses were available is also apparent from
the FIR where it is alleged that the victims were saved due to
3592.2024APPLN.odt
intervention of general public. It is obvious that lawyers, police persons,
stamp vendors, clerks etc., would be present at the relevant time and
such persons who are regularly and continuously present in Court
premises could be easily examined. It is in these backdrop that failure
to find single independent witness assumes greater significance.
9. In the light of aforesaid, we are, therefore, of the
considered opinion that the F.I.R. and consequent criminal prosecution
against the applicants need to be quashed in the interest of justice.
Hence, we pass the following order :-
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) F.I.R. No.74/2019 registered against applicants on 02.03.2019
with Dhule City Police Station, for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 149, 323, 504, 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal
Code and S.C.C. No.1566/2020 pending before the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Dhule are hereby quashed against applicants
namely (i) Yashodabai Devidas Baisane, (ii) Devidas Narayan Baisane,
(iii) Rajendra Devidas Baisane, (iv) Meena Ramesh More, (v) Anil
Ananda Sonawane and (vi) Ashok Namdev Salunkhe.
3592.2024APPLN.odt
(iii) The fees of learned Advocate Mr.Akram Inamdar appointed to
represent respondent no.2, is quantified at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand), to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub-
Committee, Aurangabad.
[ROHIT W. JOSHI] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
JUDGE JUDGE
sga/
