Bombay High Court
Tushar Gautam Kanade And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 22 January, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:4234-DB
1
657.2023APPLN.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 657 OF 2023
1. Tushar Gautam Kanade
Age : 32, Occ : Service,
(Earlier vide order dated
09.03.2023 application was rejected
as withdrawn to the extent of applicant
- Tushar Gautam Kanade.
Thereafter, vide order dated 11.09.2023
leave was granted again to add applicant
no.1 - Tushar as party)
2. Gautam Kishan Kanade
Age : 59 years, Occ : Service,
3. Daivshala Gautam Kanade
Age : 51 years, Occ : HW,
Applicant no.1 to 3 R/o Dapks Road,
Samta Nagar, Nilanga, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist. Latur.
4. Pratik Gautam Kanade
Age : 28 years, Occ : Education
Somwar peth, police colony, Pune,
Tq. & Dist. Pune.
5. Bhalchandra Bhanudas Kamble
Age : 38 years, Occ : Service
6. Pallavi Bhalchandra Kamble
Age : 31 years, Occ - HW,
Applicant nos.5 and 6 R/o Yalwat,
Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur
presently Somvar Peth, police colony,
Pune, Tq. & Dist. Pune.
..APPLICANTS
-VERSUS-
2
657.2023APPLN.odt
1. State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station Officer,
M.I.D.C. Police Station, Latur,
Tq. & Dist. Latur
2. Poonam Tushar Kanade
Age : 22 years, Occ : Housewife,
Dapsa Road, Samta Nagar,
Nilanga, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist. Latur
Presently residing at
Hudco Colony, M.I.D.C.
Latur, Tq. Latur, Dist. Latur.
..RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for the applicants : Mr. Ravindra J. Nirmal
APP for Respondent- State : Mr. N.R. Dayama
Advocate for respondent No.2 : Mr. Kedar A. Pathade h/f Mr. P.P. More
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 22nd JANUARY, 2025., 2024.
JUDGMENT (PER ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) :
. The present application is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, inter-alia, praying to quash F.I.R.
No.559/2022 dated 03.10.2022 registered with M.I.D.C. Police Station,
Latur, Dist. Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,
323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Charge-
Sheet No.368/2022 and Regular Criminal Case No.1724/2022 pending
on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur. The said
FIR is registered on the basis of information provided by respondent
no.2.
657.2023APPLN.odt
2. The parties are related to respondent no.2 as under :-
(i) Applicant No.1 - husband
(ii) Applicant No.2 - father-in-law,
(iii) Applicant No.3 - mother-in-law,
(iv) Applicant No.4 - brother-in-law,
(v) Applicant No.5 - cousin
(vi) Applicant No.6 - cousin
3. The marriage between applicant no.1 and respondent no.2
was solemnized on 25.06.2020. Applicant No.1 was in service of
Electricity Board at Nitur at the time of his marriage. Respondent No.2
has alleged that for a period of around two months from the date of
marriage, she was treated well by her in-laws and thereafter for one
reason or the other, they used to humiliate and insult her and speak ill
about her family members. The principal allegations in the FIR are
against applicant no.1 - husband. Respondent No.2 alleges that he used
to demand money for purchasing Washing Machine and Car. She
further alleges that he used to abuse and beat her under influence of
liquor in order to pressurize her and her parents to fulfill the demand.
She has stated that on one occasion she was not feeling well and
admitted in private hospital, her mother and brother had come to meet
657.2023APPLN.odt
her at matrimonial house where the in-laws abused and illtreated them
and had also charged on them threatening to physical assault them. She
states that on 23.01.2021, her mother had come to her matrimonial
home to take her to parental home for treatment since the medical
facilities at Latur are better than Nilanga i.e. the place of matrimonial
house and thereafter while she was at her parental house, she tried to
call her husband but he did not respond. When the parents went to her
matrimonial house in order to talk to applicant no.1 for amicable
resolution, applicant no.1 said that he does not like respondent no.2, he
wants to marry some other girl and thereafter he forcibly expelled her
from the house by abusing her. In such circumstances, respondent no.2
initially approached the Women Grievances Redressal Committee and
thereafter, since the issue could not be resolved, she has lodged the FIR.
4. Initially vide order dated 09.03.2023, the present
application was withdrawn with respect to applicant no.1 since this
Court had expressed disinclination to grant relief to him. However,
during the course of hearing held on 11.09.2023, learned Advocates
appearing for the parties expressed desire to explore possibility of
settlement and accordingly requested for referring the matter for
mediation. In view of the aforesaid, vide order dated 11.09.2023, the
name of applicant no.1 was permitted to be included despite deletion
657.2023APPLN.odt
vide earlier order dated 09.03.2023. This was done only in order to
facilitate the mediation. However, mediation has failed. In view of the
earlier order dated 09.03.2023, the matter cannot be heard on merits
qua applicant no.1. The learned counsel for the applicant has
withdrawn the application qua applicant no.1. The application stands
disposed of as withdrawn with respect to applicant no.1. We record our
appreciation for the fairness shown by learned counsel for the
applicants. We are hearing the parties on merits only for other
applicants.
5. We have heard Shri Ravindra J. Nirmal, learned counsel for
the applicants, learned APP Shri N.R. Dayama for respondent no.1 and
Shri Kedar A. Pathade, learned counsel for respondent no.2. We have
also perused the F.I.R., charge-sheet and statements of the witnesses
recorded during the course of investigation, which are part of the
charge-sheet.
6. Perusal of the FIR and statements make it very clear that
the grievance of respondent no.2 is against her husband-applicant no.1.
It is stated that applicant no.1 used to demand money for purchasing
Washing Machine and Car. As per the F.I.R., the father of respondent
no.2 wanted to talk to applicant no.1- husband to reason out to him
657.2023APPLN.odt
that he should treat respondent no.2 well and live happily, however, he
refused to talk. She alleges that while she was not well and staying at
her parental house, applicant no.1 - husband avoided her despite
repeated calls. Applicant No.1 has also allegedly said that he did not
like respondent no.2 and wanted to marry another girl. Thus all these
allegations are against applicant no.1 alone.
7. There are no allegations worth mentioning against
applicant nos.2 to 6. At best it can be said that applicant nos.2 to 6 did
not support respondent no.2 in resolution of matrimonial dispute with
applicant no.1 in the manner they ought to have. With a view to
implicate applicant nos.2 to 6 some statements have been made that
they used to illtreat and abuse her. However, these allegations are as
vague as they could be. The allegations are not precise and certain.
Generic words have been used in order to implicate applicant nos.2 to
6. Allegations are far too general and vague. Applicant No.1 and
Respondent No.2 were residing at the place of employment of the
applicant i.e. at Nitur. Applicant Nos.2 to 6 were not residing with
them.
8. Perusal of F.I.R. and statements of the witnesses will
demonstrate that there are no specific allegations of harassment,
657.2023APPLN.odt
illtreatment or cruelty against applicant nos.2 to 6. It appears that due
to strained relationship with applicant No.1, the family members of the
applicnt no.1 are sought to be implicated in the matter. It is now well
settled that the relatives of husband should not be forced to face
criminal prosecution under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code
unless there are clear and specific allegations in the F.I.R. and
statements of the witnesses indicating commission of offence. In the
present case, the allegations are absolutely vague and lacking in all
material particulars. In view of the settled legal position by catena of
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also this Court, we are of
the considered opinion that the allegations in the F.I.R. and statements
of family members and relatives of respondent No.2 recorded during
the course of investigation are grossly insufficient to make out offence
under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against applicant Nos.2
to 6. We are therefore inclined to allow the application with respect to
applicant Nos.2 to 6. Hence, we pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) The application is partly allowed.
(ii) The application with respect to applicant no.1 - Tushar Gautam
Kanade stands disposed of as withdrawn.
(iii) F.I.R. No.559/2022 dated 03.10.2022 registered with M.I.D.C.
Police Station, Latur, Dist. Latur, for the offences punishable under
657.2023APPLN.odt
Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, Charge-Sheet No.368/2022 and Regular Criminal Case
No.1724/2022 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Latur are hereby quashed against applicant no.2-Gautam
Kishan Kanade, applicant no.3 - Daivshala Gautam Kanade, applicant
no.4 - Pratik Gautam Kanade, applicant no.5 - Bhalchandra Bhanudas
Kamble and applicant no.6 - Pallavi Bhalchandra Kamble.
[ROHIT W. JOSHI] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
JUDGE JUDGE
sga/
