Bombay High Court
Maroti Subhash Telange And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 23 January, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:4698-DB
1/12 Judg.Cri.Appln.2948.2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2948 OF 2023
1. Maroti Subhash Telange
Age : 46 Years, Occu : Labour; R/o At Post
Vasarni, Itwara Nanded, District Nanded.
2. Kalawati Babu Ibitwar
Wrongly shown as Kalawati Maroti Telange
Age : 40 Years; Occu : Household; R/o At
Post Barhali, Tahsil Mukhed, District
Nanded.
3. Sundarabai Subhashrao Telange
Age : 69 Years, Occu : Household; R/o At
Post Vasarni, Itwara Nanded, District
Nanded.
4. Rekha Maroti Telange
Age : 52 Years, Occu : Household; R/o
House No. 24, At Post Vasarni, Tahsil and
District Nanded.
5. Maroti Pundlik Telange
Age : 59 Years, Occu : Labour; R/o House
No. 24, At Post Vasarni, Tahsil and District
Nanded.
6. Sanjay Babu Ibitwar
Age : 43 Years, Occu : Labour; R/o At Post
Barahali, Tahsil Mukhed, District Nanded.
7. Babu Maroti Ibitwar
Age : 77 Years; Occu - Nil; R/o At Post
Barahali, Tahsil Mukhed, District Nanded. ... APPLICANTS
2/12 Judg.Cri.Appln.2948.2023.odt
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector, Degloor Police
Station, Tahsil Degloor, District Nanded
2. Mira Maroti Telange
Aged : 40 Years, Occu : Labour; R/o
Deshpande Galli, Tahsil Degloor, District
Nanded. ... RESPONDENTS
Mr. Ashutosh S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Applicants.
Ms. Pooja K. Apache, Advocate (Appointed) for Respondent No.2.
Mr. S. A. Gaikwad, APP for Respondent No.1/State.
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 23, 2025.
JUDGMENT - [PER ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.]
. The present Application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of First Information Report No.
354/2022 dated 24/7/2022 registered with Police Station, Degloor, Tahsil
Degloor, District Nanded for the offences punishable under Section 498-A,
494, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Regular
Criminal Case No. 34/2023 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Degloor, District Nanded, which is registered pursuant to the said
First Information Report.
3/12 Judg.Cri.Appln.2948.2023.odt
2. The above First Information Report is lodged by the Respondent
No.2. She is related to the Applicants as under :
(i) Applicant No.1 - Husband;
(ii) Applicant No.2 - Second wife of husband;
(iii) Applicant No.3 - Mother-in-law;
(iv) Applicant No.4 - Sister-in-law (married);
(v) Applicant No.5 - Husband of Sister-in-law;
(vi) Applicant No.6 - Brother of Second wife; and
(vii) Applicant No.7 - Father of Second wife (since deceased).
3. At the outset, we may mention that since the Applicant No.7 -
Babu Maroti Ibitwar has expired, the proceeding stands disposed of against
him as abated.
4. The allegations in First Information Report demonstrate that the
marriage of Applicant No.1 and Respondent No.2 was solemnized somewhere
around the year 2006 i.e. 16 years before lodging of the First Information
Report. The Respondent No.2 has begotten two sons aged about 16 years and
14 years at the time of lodging of First Information Report from her wedlock
with the Applicant No.1. The Respondent No.2 states that for a period of
around four years, i.e. upto the year 2010, she was treated properly by her in-
laws. She alleges that her parents-in-law, sister-in-law and her husband used
4/12 Judg.Cri.Appln.2948.2023.odt
to repeatedly ask her to bring the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from her parents for
purchasing a goods vehicle for her husband/Applicant No.1, since he was in
employment as a driver. She alleges that since she had expressed inability of
her parents to meet such demand, the parents-in-law as well as sister-in-law of
her husband used to instigate her husband to beat her.
5. An allegation is made against the Applicant No.1 that he used to
raise quarrel with her for petty reasons, like cooking food etc.. She has alleged
that the husband used to threaten that he would desert her and used to cause
physical and mental harassment to her. It is also alleged that the parents-in-
law, sister-in-law and her husband used to instigate the Applicant No.1 to
force the Respondent No.2 to leave her matrimonial house. According to the
First Information Report, her relatives on parental side made several attempts
for reconciliation of the matter, however, all efforts proved to be futile. On the
contrary, she was made to suffer even greater hardship thereafter. It will be
pertinent to mention that these meetings are alleged to have been held before
a period of around six months from the date of lodging of First Information
Report.
6. Apart from the above allegations, she states that in the year 2008
her husband had beaten her up and taken all her ornaments and that he
5/12 Judg.Cri.Appln.2948.2023.odt
married the Applicant No.2 and offered the said ornaments to her at the time
of marriage. She states that the Applicant No.2 is daughter of paternal aunt of
the Applicant No.1. The marriage between Applicant No.1 and Applicant No.2
was solemnized after the demise of first husband of Applicant No.2. She has
levelled allegations of harassment against the father and brother of the
Applicant no.2 as well.
7. The First Information Report came to be registered with such
allegations against the Applicants. The Respondent No.1 has conducted
investigation in the matter after lodging the First Information Report and has
filed chargesheet in the matter on 19/1/2023 bearing No. 6/2023. Based on
the said chargesheet, a criminal case being Regular Criminal Case No.
34/2023 is registered against the Applicants.
8. Mr. Ashutosh S. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the
Applicants argues that marriage between the Applicant No.1 and Respondent
No.2 was solemnized in the year 2006. The second marriage is allegedly
solemnized in the year 2008. He points out that the younger son, who is stated
to be 14 years old, was born in close proximity with the second marriage of
the Applicant No.1. He then contends that according to the Respondent No.2
she was treated well for a period of four years after marriage which includes
6/12 Judg.Cri.Appln.2948.2023.odt
period of two years after the alleged second marriage. He then contends that
the allegations with respect to Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code are vague
and omnibus in nature. As per his contention, First Information Report, which
is registered on the basis of such allegations, is required to be quashed in
exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in
order to prevent abuse of legal process. He also argues that the Respondent
No.2 has deliberately given a penal colour to a matrimonial dispute and has
implicated mother of the Applicant No.1 as also married sister and her
husband in the matter without any justifiable cause.
9. Per contra, Mr. S. A. Gaikwad, learned APP appearing for
Respondent/State and Ms. Pooja K. Apache, learned Counsel appearing for the
Respondent No.2 contend that the allegations are not vague and general, as
contended by the Applicants. They submit that the allegations are sufficient to
take the case for trial and that the allegations may or may not be proved
during the trial is altogether a different matter. They sum up the submissions
stating that in the light of allegations in the First Information Report and
material gathered during the course of investigation, the Application deserves
to be rejected.
10. We have perused the First Information Report and other material
7/12 Judg.Cri.Appln.2948.2023.odt
in the chargesheet. The allegations in the First Information Report are
certainly not clear and precise. Allegations have been levelled in a round
about manner without providing details as regards the alleged period of
harassment amounting to cruelty. The Respondent No.2 has stated that the
relations were cordial for a period of four years after the marriage, however,
the allegations in the First Information Report tend to disclose that after a
period of two years of her marriage, second marriage was illegally solemnized
between the Applicant Nos.1 and 2. She has alleged that few days before
second marriage, all her ornaments were taken away from her and the same
were offered to the second wife. She has alleged that while taking her
ornaments, she was beaten up by the husband. These allegations pertain to
the year 2008 i.e. tentatively after a period of two years from the date of her
marriage. These allegations contradict her earlier statement in the First
Information Report, where she states that she was treated properly initially for
a period of four years after the marriage. The fact that tentative period and
tentative number of occasions of alleged illtreatment and harassment
amounting to cruelty are not mentioned in the First Information Report,
assume greater significance in view of the said contradictions.
11. It is also clear from the reading of First Information Report that
the sister-in-law and her husband have been named without being able to
8/12 Judg.Cri.Appln.2948.2023.odt
level any specific allegations against them. The allegations in the First
Information Report against them are of general and omnibus nature. Such
allegations are not sufficient to sustain prosecution under Section 498-A of
Indian Penal Code. Apart from the above, First Information Report is also
grossly belated as it relates to the alleged cruelty, which had commenced from
the year 2008.
12. The First Information Report is lodged in the year 2022, after a
period of 14 years. The Respondent No.2 has alleged that such incidents of
cruelty had occurred intermittently, however, the dates or even tentative
period thereof are not specified. The delay is sought to be explained by stating
that she did not take any steps earlier, having regard to the future of her sons.
This solitary statement is not sufficient to explain the cause of inordinate delay
of around 14 years in reporting the acts of cruelty.
13. It also appears improbable and inconceivable that when a demand
was made for a particular purpose i.e. purchasing a goods vehicle, the demand
will be for the same amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. Judicial notice can be taken
about the fact that for a period extending to 14 years, the cost of any
commodity including a goods transport vehicle would not be the same. This
also dents the credibility of the allegations levelled by the Respondent No.2.
9/12 Judg.Cri.Appln.2948.2023.odt
14. Having regard to totality of circumstances, the general nature of
allegations in the First Information Report and inordinate delay in lodging the
First Information Report, we are of the view that continuation of prosecution
against the Applicants will not yield any purpose. The material on record is
grossly inadequate to sustain prosecution against them. The essential
ingredients to make out a case under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code are
lacking in the First Information Report. Continuation of prosecution against
the Applicants will, therefore, amount to abuse of the legal process. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that the First Information Report against the
Applicants deserves to be quashed with respect to the offence under Section
498-A of Indian Penal Code.
15. Section 494 of Indian Penal Code is included in Chapter XX of the
Indian Penal Code. Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides
that cognizance of offences under Chapter XX including Section 494 of Indian
Penal Code can be taken only on complaint made by the wife, or on her behalf
by her parental relatives, as are specified in the said provision. The offence is
non-cognizable offence. Since the First Information Report is lodged under
Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, cognizance with respect to the offence
under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code can also be taken. First Information
Report for offence under Section 494 was maintainable only because of
10/12 Judg.Cri.Appln.2948.2023.odt
Section 498-A. Since the case under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code is
not made out and we have held that First Information Report is liable to be
quashed qua Section 498-A, First Information Report cannot be sustained for
the offence under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code, which is a non-cognizable
offence, and also because Section 198 of Code of Criminal Procedure provides
that cognizance can be taken only on the basis of complaint and not on the
basis of First Information Report. We may also mention that the other
Sections, under which First Information Report is registered i.e. Sections 323,
504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, are non-cognizable offences.
16. We are of the opinion that there is a delay of around 14 years in
raising grievance with respect to the second marriage. The delay is not
explained by the Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2 has resided together
with her husband and his second wife for a period of about 14 years. She has
lodged First Information Report with respect to the said offence only when
there was a breakdown of matrimonial relationship with her husband.
17. The Respondent No.2 has alleged that the Applicant No.2 is
second wife of her husband i.e. Applicant No.1. On the basis of allegations,
offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code is registered. As has been
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U. Suvetha V/s State by
11/12 Judg.Cri.Appln.2948.2023.odt
Inspector of Police and Another,1 and this Court in the case of Ranjana
Gopalrao Thorat V/s State of Maharashtra2, the second wife is not a relative of
the husband, since the marriage is not a legal marriage. Since the second wife,
with whom marriage is solemnized illegally, cannot be termed to be relative of
the husband within the meaning of Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. The
second wife i.e. Applicant No.2 and her brother/Applicant No.6 cannot be
prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal
Code. Although the second wife/Applicant No.2 was cousin of the husband,
the allegations in First Information Report against her are in her capacity of
second wife and not in her capacity of cousin of husband.
18. For the reasons aforesaid, the Application deserves to be allowed
and is, accordingly, allowed. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
A) The Criminal Application is allowed.
B) The First Information Report No. 354/2022 dated 24/7/2022 registered
with Police Station, Degloor, Tahsil Degloor, District Nanded for the
offences punishable under Section 498-A, 494, 323, 504 and 506 read
1 2009(6) Supreme Court Cases 757
2 2007(5) Mh.L.J. 425
12/12 Judg.Cri.Appln.2948.2023.odt
with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Regular Criminal Case No.
34/2023 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Degloor, District Nanded, which is registered pursuant to the said First
Information Report are quashed against the Applicant Nos.1 to 7, viz -
Applicant No.1 - Maroti Subhash Telange; Applicant No.2 - Kalawati
Babu Ibitwar; Applicant No.3 - Sundarabai Subhashrao Telange;
Applicant No.4 - Rekha Maroti Telange; Applicant No.5 - Maroti
Pundlik Telange; Applicant No.6 - Sanjay Babu Ibitwar; and Applicant
No.7 - Babu Maroti Ibitwar respectively.
C) Ms. Pooja K. Apache, learned Appointed Counsel appeared on behalf of
the Respondent No.2. Her professional fees is quantified at Rs.7500/-.
(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)
vijaya
