Bombay High Court
Sachin Madhukar Wagh And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 20 January, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:4235-DB
1
3079.2023APPLN.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3079 OF 2023
1. Sachin Madhukar Wagh- withdrawn
Age : 32 years, Occ : Service,
2. Madhukar Ramchandra Wagh
Age : 62 years, Occ : Nil,
3. Vithabhai Madhukar Wagh
Age : 61 years, Occ : Household,
4. Nitin Madhukar Wagh
Age : 38 years, Occ : Service
1 to 4 are R/o Plot No.15, Ahirenagar,
Behind Nanavati Petrol Pump,
Collector Patta, Malegaon,
Dist. Nashik
5. Ujjwala Yuvraj Patil
Age : 37 years, Occ : Household,
6. Yuvraj Trambak Patil
Age : 42 years,
5 & 6 are R/o Shikshak Colony,
Dhule Road, Chalisgaon.
..APPLICANTS
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Chalisgaon Police Station,
Chalisgaon.
2. Shweta Sachin Wagh
Age : 28 years, Occ : Household,
R/o Plot No.8, Shiv Colony,
Old Malegaon Road,
Behind Bungalow of K.K. Mus, Chalisgaon.
..RESPONDENTS
...
2
3079.2023APPLN.odt
Advocate for the applicants : Mr.Dipesh D. Pande
APP for Respondent- State : Mr. S.A. Gaikwad
Advocate for respondent No.2 : Mr. Sohail Subhedar (appointed)
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 20th 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.), inter-alia praying to quash F.I.R.
No.104/2022 dated 14.03.2022 registered with Chalisgaon Police
Station, Chalisgaon, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,
323, 504, 506 and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
(I.P.C.) and Regular Criminal Case No.228/2022 pending on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chalisgaon. The said FIR is
registered on the basis of information provided by respondent no.2.
2. Respondent No.2 is wife of applicant no.1. Their marriage
was solemnized on 02.06.2017. They are blessed with two children
from the wedlock. After her marriage with applicant no.1, respondent
no.2 moved to her matrimonial house at Malegaon, Dist. Nashik.
However, her husband-applicant no.1 was in employment at Pune, and
therefore, he had moved to Pune alone for the purpose of his
employment.
3079.2023APPLN.odt
3. Respondent No.2 has lodged FIR stating that after her
husband had moved to Pune, he used to be a very busy with his work.
Respondent No.2 stayed in matrimonial house at Malegaon. Applicant
no.1 could not find time even to talk to her on telephone, since he was
very busy with his work. She has alleged that thereafter her in-laws and
sister-in-law and her husband started making complaints with respect
to presents offered at the time of marriage. She alleges that they started
harassing her physically and mentally on this count. She states that in
July, 2017, while she was going to Pune along with father-in-law and
mother-in-law, she had received news about sad demise of her cousin.
Due to which she was constantly getting telephonic calls from her
relatives on parental side. However, applicant no.2 informed applicant
no.1 - husband that respondent no.2 was talking to some unknown
person throughout the night. She alleges that due to this, applicant
no.1 started doubting her character and therefrom he also started
physical and mental harassment. She has stated that on the demand of
applicant no.1-husband, her father has given a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- to
him for purchasing flat at Pune and despite fulfilling the demand once
the in-laws were again asking for more money and used to instigate
applicant no.1 to maintain pressure so that additional money can be
extracted from his father-in-law. She has alleged that her husband had
no interest in marital relationship and was only interested in dowry.
3079.2023APPLN.odt
She speaks about an incident in December, 2020 when she was carrying
three months pregnancy. The allegation is that the in-laws wanted her
to terminate the pregnancy against her wish and on refusal, they had
driven her out of the matrimonial home after retaining all her
ornaments. She alleges that she was also abused and beaten by in-laws
during the said incident. The last allegation is with respect to incident
dated 24.10.2021, it is alleged that all the applicants had come to her
parental house, where she was staying and immediately started abusing
and beating her and raised a demand for payment of Rs.5,00,000/-. On
the basis of such allegations crime came to be registered against the
applicants as aforesaid on 14.03.2022 and upon completion of
investigation, Respondent No.1 has filed Charge-Sheet No.74/2022 on
31.05.2022. Pursuant to the said charge-sheet, Regular Criminal Case
No.228/2022 is registered against the applicants. The applicants have
challenged the said FIR, Charge-Sheet and have also prayed for
quashing Regular Criminal Case.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has not pressed the
application of applicant no.1. The application stands disposed of with
respect to applicant no.1 as withdrawn vide order dated 13 th
September, 2023.
3079.2023APPLN.odt
5. As regards applicant nos.5 and 6, applicant no.5 is married
sister-in-law and applicant no.6 is her husband. They are not residing
with other applicants. The allegation against them is that they used to
visit the parental house of applicant no.5 i.e. matrimonial house of
respondent no.2 intermittently and illtreat and harass respondent no.2
mentally as well as physically. It is alleged that they used to instigate
the husband to press for demand of money and to harass respondent
no.2 mentally and physically in order to exert pressure for fulfillment of
monetary demand.
6. It appears from the FIR that respondent no.2 had shifted to
Pune to reside with her husband. Allegation with respect to demand of
Rs.4,50,000/- is that the said demand was made by husband at Pune.
Applicant Nos.2 to 4 are residing at Malegaon, Dist. Nashik. The
allegations against applicant nos.2 to 6 are omnibus in nature. At all
places in the FIR collective role is attributed to applicant nos.2 to 6.
Respondent No.2 has not been able to attribute any individual role to
applicant nos.2 to 6.
7. Respondent No.2 has alleged that all the applicants had
been to her parental house on 24.10.2021 in order to raise demand of
Rs.5,00,000/- and had abused and beaten her in presence of her father
3079.2023APPLN.odt
and brother. It will be pertinent to mention that immediately thereafter
on 29.10.2021, she has filed domestic violence case in which there is
absolutely no mention about the alleged incident stated to have
occurred on 24.10.2021. Other allegations as stated above are omnibus
against applicant nos.2 to 6. Likewise, particulars of alleged
illtreatment, such as tentative period, as also mode and manner of same
is not mentioned in the FIR. The silence with respect to alleged episode
dated 24.10.2021 in the domestic violence case filed on 29.10.2021
speaks volumes about the intent of respondent no.2. Perusal of the FIR
indicates that the principal grievance of respondent no.2 is against her
husband. She has also shifted to Pune to reside with applicant no.1-her
husband. The matrimonial discord between applicant no.1 and
respondent no.2 assumed extreme proportions resulting in initiation of
litigation pertaining to domestic violence case, restitution petition and
lastly criminal prosecution under Section 498-A of the IPC. The
contents of FIR and statements recorded during the course of
investigation clearly indicate that respondent no.2 has unnecessarily
resorted to over implication. The in-laws, who were not residing
together with respondent no.2 and her husband, have been
unnecessary implicated in the matter without there being any specific
allegations against them. Learned counsel for the applicant has rightly
referred to and relied upon the judgments viz:- Geeta Mehrotra Vs.
3079.2023APPLN.odt
State of U.P. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741, Preeti Gupta and others
Vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, G.V.
Rao Vs. L.H.V. Prasad and others reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 and
Anil Baban Rathod and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
another reported in 2021 All M.R. (Cri.) 1455.
8. We are in agreement with learned counsel for the
applicants that the principles laid down in the above cases are squarely
applicable to the present case. We have appreciated the contents of FIR
and statements recorded during the course of investigation with due
care and caution. We have taken into consideration other attending
circumstances as is directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and
others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 127. Having regard to the
totality of circumstances emerging from the material on record, we are
of the considered opinion that continuation of prosecution against the
applicant nos.2 to 6 will not serve any fruitful purpose. It will rather
amount to abuse of legal process. Hence we pass the following order :-
ORDER
(i) The application is partly allowed.
(ii) The application with respect to applicant no.1 - Sachin Madhukar
Wagh stands disposed of as withdrawn.
3079.2023APPLN.odt
(iii) F.I.R. No.104/2022 dated 14.03.2022 registered with Chalisgaon
Police Station, Chalisgaon, for the offences punishable under Sections
498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Regular Criminal Case No.228/2022 pending on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chalisgaon are hereby
quashed against applicant no.2- Madhukar Ramchandra Wagh,
applicant no.3 - Vithabhai Madhukar Wagh, applicant no.4 - Nitin
Madhukar Wagh, applicant no.5 - Ujjwala Yuvraj Patil and applicant
no.6 - Yuvraj Trambak Patil.
(iv) The fees of learned Advocate Mr. Sohail Subhedar 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/
