Bombay High Court
Onkar Chandrakant Teli And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 10 January, 2025
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Digitally
signed by
TRUPTI
2025:BHC-AS:1623-DB
TRUPTI
SADANAND
SADANAND BAMNE
BAMNE Date:
2025.01.15
10:39:18
+0530
Trupti 903-wp-1315-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1315 OF 2024
1. Onkar Chandrakant Teli
Aged 29 years
2. Chandrakant Vasudev Teli
Aged 61 years
3. Priyanka Chandrakant Teli,
Aged 53 years
4. Aishwarya Chandrakant Teli
Aged 26 years
5. Vaishanavee Chandrakant Teli
Aged 22 years
All residing at:-
Room No. 22, Plot no. 13,
Akurli Siddhi CHS Ltd.,
Kandivali (E), Mumbai. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Samta Nagar Police Station,
Kandivali, Mumbai - 400 101.
2. Tejaswini Pradeep Akerkar,
Aged 26 years,
Residing at-2 K/ Room No. 414,
Jai Ambe Sadan,
Near Peninsula Corporate Park,
Lower Parel (W), Mumbai ... Respondents
----
Mr.Vishal M. Deshmukh for the Petitioners.
Mr.R.M.Pethe, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
1 of 11
::: Uploaded on - 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2025 06:41:06 :::
Trupti 903-wp-1315-2024.odt
Mr.Prasad Panchal with Ms.Neha Rane for Respondent No.2.
----
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 10TH JANUARY, 2025.
JUDGMENT (Per: Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.)
1. This matter was heard for quite some time on 9 th
January, 2025. Petitioner No.2 was present in the Court. We
granted an overnight pass-over to enable the learned Advocate for
the Petitioners to take instructions.
2. Today, the learned Advocate submits, on instructions
from Petitioner No.2, who is present in the Court, that they pray for
an order.
3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
by the consent of the parties.
4. The Petitioners comprise of the husband of the
Complainant, parents-in-law and the sisters-in-law. They have put
forth prayer clause 14 (i) as under:
"i) F.I.R.No. 0220 of 2023 dated 31.03.2023
registered by respondent no.2 may kindly be
2 of 11
Trupti 903-wp-1315-2024.odt
quashed on the ground that there is no offence
made out against the Petitioners".
5. A First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 0123 of
2023, was registered on 22nd March, 2023 at 20:58 hours with the
N.M.Joshi Marg Police Station, Brihan Mumbai (City). All these
Petitioners are arrayed as the Accused in the said FIR.
Subsequently, the FIR was transferred to the Samta Nagar Police
Station, and was registered on 31st March, 2023 at 00: 23 hours
(00:23 am) and renumbered as 0220 of 2023.
6. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners has
strenuously canvassed that none of the Petitioners are guilty of
having committed any offence. All of them are innocent. A false
complaint has been registered by the Complainant/ Informant, who
is the wife of Petitioner No.1. She is working as a Junior Processing
Officer in a Bank. She has falsely leveled allegations due to which
Sections 377, 498-A, 323, 506 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 have been invoked.
7. It is canvassed that the marriage between Petitioner
No.1 and the Complainant was solemnized on 27 th May, 2022. It is
3 of 11
Trupti 903-wp-1315-2024.odt
claimed that the Complainant was staying in the marital home and
the marriage was not consummated for two months. The
Complainant started insisting for a separate residence after three
days of the marriage. The parents politely rejected the request. The
Complainant has a dominating nature.
8. A Satyanarayan Pooja was performed on 9th June, 2022.
The relatives of the Complainant attended the Pooja, had Darshan
and had lunch. The Complainant consistently demanded a separate
residence and that was the reason for the quarrel. A host of reasons
are cited in the pleadings to claim that the FIR contains false and
bogus complaints.
9. The Petitioners have relied upon Preeti Gupta and
Another Versus State of Jharkhand and Another 1 claiming that
exaggerated versions are not to be considered. In paragraph 4 of
Preeti Gupta and Another (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted
that the only demand made by the in-laws of the Informant was for
a luxury car and no incident of harassment was alleged. There were
no other allegations. The Prosecution Witness also did not make any
allegations against the Accused.
1 (2010) 7 SCC 667
4 of 11
Trupti 903-wp-1315-2024.odt
10. The Petitioners have then relied upon Abhishek Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh2. The allegations set out are adverted to in
paragraph 6 of the judgment. It is concluded in paragraph 12 as
under :
"12. The contours of the power to quash
criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P.C. are
well defined. In V. Ravi Kumar v. State represented
by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch,
Salem, Tamil Nadu ((2019) 14 SCC 568], this Court
affirmed that where an accused seeks quashing of
the FIR, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the
High Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High
Court to enter into the factual arena to adjudge the
correctness of the allegations in the complaint. In
Neeharika Infrastructure (P). Ltd. v. State of
Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021,
decided on 13.04.2021], a 3- Judge Bench of this
Court elaborately considered the scope and extent of
the power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. It was
observed that the power of quashing should be
exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the
rarest of rare cases, such standard not being
confused with the norm formulated in the context of
the death penalty. It was further observed that while
examining the FIR/complaint, quashing of which is
sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as
to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made therein, but if the Court thinks fit,
regard being had to the parameters of quashing and
the self-restraint imposed by law, and more
particularly, the parameters laid down by this Court
in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866)
and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp (1)
SCC 335), the Court would have jurisdiction to
quash the FIR/complaint.
2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083
5 of 11
Trupti 903-wp-1315-2024.odt
11. The principles culled out by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Haryana V. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others3. were
referred to in paragraph 17 as under :
"17. In Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court had set out,
by way of Illustration, the broad categories of
cases in which the inherent power under Section
482 Cr. P.C. could be exercised. Para 102 of the
decision reads as follows:
'102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of
the various relevant provisions of the Code
under Chapter XIV and of the principles of
law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of Illustration
wherein such power could be exercised
either to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay
down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
3. AIR 1992 SC 604
6 of 11
Trupti 903-wp-1315-2024.odt
report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
Justifying an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order
of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only
a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)
of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted
in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act
concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the Act concerned,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge."
7 of 11
Trupti 903-wp-1315-2024.odt
12. In Abhishek (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court finally
observed that Abhishek became a Judicial Officer 6 or 7 months
after marriage and had no occasion to deal with the Complainant at
Mumbai. His exposure to her was only when she came to visit her
in-laws during festivals. Nimish was the brother of the husband of
the Complainant. It was also noted that the Complainant left the
marital home in February, 2009 and did not complain against the in-
laws or her husband for a period of four years. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court, therefore, partly quashed the FIR only to the extent
of Kusum Lata, Abhishek Gour and Sourabh Gour.
13. The learned Advocate representing the Complainant has
entered an affidavit in reply, dated 8th January, 2025. The
Complainant has reiterated all the allegations made against the
husband and the in-laws. The intemperate language and the
temperamental behaviour of the husband, is reiterated in the
affidavit in reply. She has also adverted to a complaint made to the
Police Station on 2nd January, 2023 making serious allegations about
the sexual assault and the acts of unnatural sex by the husband. The
said complaint runs into eight pages and there is a vivid description
8 of 11
Trupti 903-wp-1315-2024.odt
about the weird behaviour of the husband as well as the parents-in-
law.
14. We do not desire to advert to each and every complaint
made by the Complainant keeping in view that our observations
may influence the learned Trial Court Judge.
15. The learned APP submits that the Complainant has time
and again approached the Law Enforcement Agencies for redressal.
Initially, she did not file an FIR, but approached the Police Station,
probably under the impression that the intervention of the Police
Authorities would change the aggressive and atrocious behaviour of
the husband and the mother-in-law. The learned Advocate for the
Complainant submits that when it became unbearable for the
Complainant, that she approached the Police Station and lodged the
FIR.
16. Taking into account the various factors as recorded
above, we have referred to the following judgments:
(i) Naresh Aneja alias Naresh Kumar Aneja Versus State of
Uttar Pradesh4;
4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3
9 of 11
Trupti 903-wp-1315-2024.odt
(ii) Kim Wansoo Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others 5;
(iii) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh etc6;
(iv) State of Odisha Versus Pratima Mohanty and Others;7
(v) Kaptan Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others;8
(vi) Rajeev Kourav Versus Baisahab and Others;9
(vii) State of Haryana V. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others;10
17. We find that the allegations against the father-in-law,
namely, Chandrakant Vasudev Teli and the two biological sisters of
Petitioner No.1, namely, Aishwarya Chandrakant Teli and
Vaishanavee Chandrakant Teli, are only to the extent of minor taunts
and comments made upon the Complainant. Both the sisters-in-law
are alleged to have been taunting the Complainant and indicating to
her that she must do as the mother-in-law desires.
18. Considering the above and the law applicable, we are of
the view that this Petition can be considered to the extent of
Petitioner Nos. 2, 4 and 5.
5 2025 SCC OnLine SC 17
6 AIR 2023 Supreme Court 1987
7 (2022) 16 SCC 703
8 (2021) 9 SCC 35
9 (2020) 3 SCC 317
10 AIR 1992 SC 604
10 of 11
Trupti 903-wp-1315-2024.odt
19. As such, this Writ Petition is partly allowed to the
extent of Petitioner Nos.2, 4 and 5, namely, Chandrakant Teli,
Aishwarya Teli and Vaishanavee Teli, respectively. FIR bearing No.
0220 of 2023 registered with Samta Nagar Police Station on 31 st
March, 2023 stands quashed to the extent of these three Petitioners.
20. Insofar as Petitioner No.1, Onkar Chandrakant Teli
(husband), and Petitioner No.3, Priyanka Chandrakant Teli (mother-
in-law) of the Complainant, this Writ Petition stands dismissed.
21. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
11 of 11
