Bombay High Court
Akshay Vinayak Pawar And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 24 January, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:1997-DB
cria-4031.22
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4031 OF 2022
1) Akshay S/o Vinayak Pawar
(Husband),
Age-29 years, Occu:Nil,
R/o-Flat No.13, E/2 Apartment,
Vision City, Kanchanwadi,
Aurangabad,
2) Vinayak S/o Nivruti Pawar,
(Father-in-law),
Age-61 years, Occu:Service,
R/o-Flat No.13, E/2 Apartment,
Vision City, Kanchanwadi,
Aurangabad,
3) Mangal W/o Vinayak Pawar,
(Mother-in-law),
Age-49 years, Occu:Household,
R/o-Flat No.13, E/2 Apartment,
Vision City, Kanchanwadi,
Aurangabad,
4) Pritam S/o Vinayak Pawar,
(Brother-in-law),
Age-25 years, Occu:Student,
R/o-703, 2C Building No.122,
Bhakti Height, Tilak Nagar,
Chember West, Mumbai,
5) Murlidhar S/o Maroti Asabe,
(Father of Mother-in-law),
Age-77 years, Occu:Nil,
R/o-At Post-Warapgaon,
Tq-Ambajogai, Dist-Beed,
cria-4031.22
2
6) Gangubai W/o Murlidhar Asabe,
(Mother of Mother-in-law),
Age-72 years, Occu:Nil,
R/o-At Post-Warapgaon,
Tq-Ambajogai, Dist-Beed,
...APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through P.I., Kallam,
Dist-Osmanabad,
2) Puja W/o Akshay Pawar,
Age-26 years, Occu:Household,
R/o-At Post-Tandulwadi,
Tq-Kallam, Dist-Osmanabad.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr. M.R. Wagh Advocate
for Applicants.
Mr. A.R. Kale, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 - State.
Mr. V.D Salunke Advocate i/b. Mr. S.A. Nagarsoge Advocate
for Respondent No.2.
...
CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 10th JANUARY 2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT : 24th JANUARY 2025
JUDGMENT [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] :
1. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates
appearing for the respective parties.
cria-4031.22
3
2. Present Application has been filed, initially for quashing the
First Information Report (for short "the FIR") vide Crime No.423
of 2022 dated 14th November 2022 registered with Kallam Police
Station, District-Osmanabad and by way of amendment for
quashing the proceedings in R.C.C. No.21 of 2023 pending
before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kallam,
District-Osmanabad, for the offence punishable under Sections
498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3. The facts which are not in dispute, are that respondent
No.2 got married to applicant No.1 on 6 th January 2021.
Applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of applicant No.1.
Applicant No.4 is brother of applicant No.1. Applicant Nos.5
and 6 are the parents of applicant No.3 (mother-in-law).
4. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. V.D. Sapkal instructed by
Mr. M.K. Wagh Advocate for the applicants, learned APP Mr. A.R.
Kale for respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Mr. V.D. Salunke
instructed by Mr. S.A. Nagarsoge Advocate for respondent No.2.
cria-4031.22
4
Perused the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.2 along with
the annexures.
5. Respondent No.2 - informant in her FIR has stated that
after her marriage with applicant No.1, she had gone to reside
with the husband and in-laws. At the time of marriage, her
parents had given amount of Rs.7,00,000/- as dowry, 15 Tolas of
gold jewellery, amount of Rs.11,000/- for clothes as well as
household utensils. She was treated properly for about 3
months. However, after 2 to 3 months, when she was at home
on 22nd April 2021, applicant Nos. 2 to 6 started demanding
amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, to be brought by her from her parents,
for household expenses. Applicant No.1 had then assaulted her
by kicks and fists and all of them had abused her. She told them
that her parents are not having so much of amount and
therefore, she will not bring the amount. At that time she was
again assaulted and abused. She was kept starving. Around 9.00
a.m. on 12th February 2022, applicant No.1 told her that she
should bring four wheeler from her parents and at that time
applicant No.4 told that she should be driven out of the house
and when she brings the Car then she would be taken for
cohabitation and then he abused the informant. Therefore, she
cria-4031.22
5
informed the said fact to her parents on phone. Informant was
then advised by the parents that she should bear with the
harassment and if she gets a child then everything will be
alright. All the applicants started saying that her parents have
not given anything in the marriage and she should bring four
wheeler and then she was left at her parental home at
Tandulwadi by applicant No.1 on 17th April 2022. While going,
applicant No.1 had abused her and given threats to cut hand and
legs of the informant and her father.
6. The investigation has been completed and charge-sheet is
filed.
7. Learned Senior Counsel has taken us through the said FIR
and the statements of the witnesses. He submits that the FIR is
nothing but rested on concocted story when in fact informant
had left the house on her own wish. Applicant No.1 had given
notice through Advocate on 6th May 2022 asking her to resume
cohabitation within fifteen days otherwise applicant No.1 would
be at liberty to take appropriate legal steps. Thereafter on 24 th
June 2022 applicant No.1 has filed Petition for Divorce bearing
H.M.P. No.138 of 2022 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior
cria-4031.22
6
Division, Ambajogai, District-Beed. The informant has filed
proceedings under the provisions of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act before the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Kallam, to which the applicants have given written reply
on 3rd August 2023. As a counter blast to the steps taken by
applicant No.1, the FIR has been lodged. If we consider the
statements of the father of the informant and other witnesses, it
is to be noted that they are trying to give more facts which are
not even pleaded by respondent No.2 in her FIR. It is then
stated by the witnesses that brother of the informant had
booked a Car on 2nd April 2022 after it was learnt that there is a
demand for Car from informant to her parents. There was a
meeting which was attended by the respectable persons but then
it is stated that a proposal was put by the father of the informant
that he had booked the Car for which he would pay the down
payment but the further installments to be paid by applicant
No.1, to which the applicants did not agree. All these are the
concocted facts. Even the affidavit-in-reply given by respondent
No.2 would show that she is now further exaggerating the story
which she had not stated in the FIR. Though the FIR is not an
encyclopedia, but at least the basic facts are required to be
pleaded. With such exaggeration and no specific role attributed
cria-4031.22
7
to applicant No.4, who was the student and now resides at
Mumbai, it would be unjust to ask the applicants to face the trial.
Even the grand-parents, who are residing at Ambajogai, have
been roped in. The documents produced i.e. receipt of the
jewellery would certainly show that even the applicants' side
had purchased gold ornaments for giving it to respondent No.2.
Applicant No.1 has given reasons in the Petition filed for divorce,
as to why the differences arose between him and applicant No.2.
8. Per contra, the learned APP as well as learned Advocate for
respondent No.2 strongly opposed the Application. Learned
Advocate for respondent No.2 submits that role has been
attributed to each and every accused in the FIR. Respondent
No.2 was treated properly only for three months after the
marriage. When marriage was actually performed in a grand
way, still the applicants started demanding amount. Demand of
Rs.6,00,000/- was made on 22nd April 2021 for household
expenses. When it was refused by respondent No.2, she was
assaulted and abused. Then there was demand for four wheeler
on 12th February 2022. Then on 17 th April 2022, applicant No.1
had forcefully left informant at her parental home. When the
demand for Car was made, the said fact was informed by
cria-4031.22
8
respondent No.2 to her father. Therefore, father in his statement
under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure says that
he had asked his son Rohit to book a Car. Accordingly, it was
booked on 2nd April 2022. But then father of the informant says
that since the Car could not be delivered within time, respondent
No.2 was left by applicant No.1 at his house. Thereafter also he
had made attempts to persuade the applicants. Though notice
was given by applicant No.1, on 22 nd May 2022, father of the
informant went to Deola and found that the house was under
lock and the applicants had gone to Aurangabad. When he came
to Aurangabad on 24th May 2022, along with the informant, it
was found that the house was closed. He had taken the
photographs. Thereafter the father of the informant had taken
the relatives and friends and arranged a meeting, however,
applicant No.2 flatly refused to pay the installments of the Car.
Then the father of the informant showed inability to give the Car
and then the notice of the divorce proceedings was received by
the informant. All these acts amount to cruelty. Just prior to
marriage the father of the informant had transferred an amount
of Rs.2,00,000/- each on 9th December 2020 and 10th December
2020, from the account of the mother of the informant and
further an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was transferred to the
cria-4031.22
9
account of applicant No.1 on 10 th December 2020, from the
account of the father of the informant. In spite of giving so much
of amount, it appears that the applicants were greedy and they
have subjected respondent No.2 to cruelty. There is also a
document regarding booking of the Car by Rohit. Now, charge-
sheet is filed, therefore, let the trial be held. This cannot be
taken as a fit case where the inherent powers are required to be
exercised.
9. At the outset, we would like to say that taking into
consideration the FIR, the marital life, till respondent No.2
allegedly left at her parental home, is one year and three
months. Out of which, informant says that she was treated
properly for about three months and then quotes two incidents
of 22nd April 2021 and 12th February 2022. She has stated that
the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was demanded by all the applicants
on 22nd April 2021 for household expenses. Then she attributes
the physical act of assault only to applicant No.1 and as regards
others, it is stated that they abused her. Thereafter, the
informant says that intermittently she was kept starved. That
means, it was not a continuous act of either demand, assault
and abuse. Then informant is specifically saying that at 9.00
cria-4031.22
10
a.m. on 12th February 2022, applicant No.1 made demand for
four wheeler and then applicant No.4, brother-in-law told that
she should be driven out of the house. She has not involved
applicant Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 in the subsequent incident
dated 12th February 2022. She states that she had informed the
said fact to her parents and then the parents advised her to bear
with the cruelty. But, still it is said that all the applicants were
saying that nothing was given at the time of marriage and she
should bring four wheeler. Now, when informant says this, she is
not alleging any act of cruelty because only demand not coupled
with any act, may not amount to cruelty as contemplated under
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
10. Then directly, the informant in the FIR, says that she was
left at the parental home on 17 th April 2022, by applicant No.1
and while going, he had abused and gave threats to her.
Important point to be noted is that if applicant No.1 had gone to
her parental home for leaving her on 17 th April 2022 and this fact
has been then stated by father Ramesh, he has not stated that
the Car was already booked on 2nd April 2022. We are aware that
we cannot meticulously go into the contradictions in the
statement, however, this Court would be justified in reading
cria-4031.22
11
between the lines in order to assess, whether anybody is falsely
implicated or arrayed as an accused with mala fide intention. The
FIR is totally silent on the point of booking of a Car by Rohit,
brother of the informant, on 2 nd April 2022 itself and the further
acts of going father along with the informant to Deola on 22 nd
May 2022, to Aurangabad on 24th May 2022 and the alleged
meeting wherein there was refusal by applicant No.2 to pay the
installments of the Car. The said improvement appears to be with
ulterior motive taking advantage of the fact that Rohit had
booked a Car for himself on 2 nd April 2022. If the accused
persons were demanding the Car and it was booked much prior
to 17th April 2022, then there would not have been an occasion
for applicant No.1 to leave the informant to her parental home.
Statements of Uttamrao Tekale, Gajanan Chonde, Sunil Kale,
would show that they had attended the meeting, however, none
of them has given the date of the meeting. Even the father of
the informant has also not given the date of the said meeting
when in respect of other events specific dates are given.
Statement of mother of the informant would show that when
demand for four wheeler was made and the father of the
informant had shown willingness to give, it was resisted by the
informant, however, still the parents showed their willingness to
cria-4031.22
12
give the four wheeler. Now, everybody appears to be interested
in improving the facts. Statement of Rohit has been recorded on
20th November 2022, but it is totally silent on the point, as to
what happened to the Car which he had booked on 2 nd April
2022. He has not stated that when applicant No.2 had refused to
give installments, he had cancelled the booking.
11. The affidavit-in-reply of respondent No.2 consists of more
facts than pleaded in the FIR. Now, she has tried to give answer
to everything that has been raised. It is now pleaded that in the
said divorce petition when respondent No.2 has filed an
application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for
interim maintenance, applicant No.1, who was serving as a Bank
Manager, has given resignation, thereby he wants to show that
he is unable to give maintenance that may be fixed.
12. Learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 has also
produced on record one Mutation Entry showing that the father,
applicant No.2 has sold his agricultural land to applicant No.5.
We are afraid that these acts, which are subsequent, cannot be
taken as acts of cruelty as contemplated under Section 498-A of
the Indian Penal Code. Those contentions may be raised in
cria-4031.22
13
appropriate legal proceedings, but here the cruelty has been
specifically defined in the Explanation to Section 498-A of the
Indian Penal Code and therefore, it should be either within
Explanation (a) or Explanation (b) to Section 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code.
13. Taking into consideration the contents of the FIR and the
statements of the witnesses and the contents of the charge-
sheet, the case squarely falls within the parameters laid down in
State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and others, AIR
1992 SC 604, for exercise of powers under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that the proceedings
have been initiated in order to rope everybody and it would be
unjust to ask the applicants to face the trial. Application,
therefore, deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
(I) The Application stands allowed.
(II) The proceedings in R.C.C. No.21 of 2023
pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Kallam, District-Osmanabad for the offence
punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506
cria-4031.22
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
arising out of the the First Information Report vide
Crime No.423 of 2022 dated 14th November 2022
registered with Kallam Police Station, District-
Osmanabad, stands quashed and set aside as
against applicant Nos.1 to 6 i.e. - 1) Akshay S/o
Vinayak Pawar 2) Vinayak S/o Nivruti Pawar, 3)
Mangal W/o Vinayak Pawar, 4) Pritam S/o Vinayak
Pawar, 5) Murlidhar S/o Maroti Asabe and 6)
Gangubai W/o Murlidhar Asabe.
[ROHIT W. JOSHI] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
JUDGE JUDGE
asb/JAN25
