Bombay High Court
Vinod Haridas Jadhav And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 29 July, 2025
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2025:BHC-AS:31817-DB
KVM APL 813-2024.doc
Digitally signed
by KANCHAN
KANCHAN VINOD
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
VINOD MAYEKAR
MAYEKAR Date:
2025.07.29
17:58:38 +0530
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 813 OF 2024
1) Vinod Haridas Jadhav ]
Age :- 38 Years, Occupation :- Service]
2) Smt. Sunita Haridas Jadhav ]
Age :- 52 Years, Occupation :- Housewife]
Both, 1 & 2 residing at :- ]
Sr.No. 819, House No.40, ]
Adj.Vitthal Temple, Someshwarwadi, ]
Pashan Pune, Maharashtra 411008 ] ..... Applicants
V/s.
1) The State of Maharashtra ]
(Thr.Wakad Police Station, Wakad, ]
Pune) ]
2) Smt.Shweta Vinod Jadhav ]
Age :- 32 Years, Occupation :- Housewife]
R/o :- Yashoda Colony, Wakad Road, ]
Dange Chawk, Thergaon, ]
Pimpri Chinchwad, Pune ]
Maharashtra 411035 ] ..... Respondents
______________________
Mr. Shreyas P. Barsawade (Thr. V.C.) for Applicants.
Smt. Prajakta P. Shinde, A.P.P., for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Balwant V. Salunkhe for Respondent No.2.
______________________
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 18th JUNE, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 29th JULY, 2025
JUDGMENT (PER RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) :
-
1) This Criminal Application is filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused, for quashing of C.R. No. 900 of
KVM APL 813-2024.doc
2023 registered with Wakad Police Station, Pune for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 377, 498A, 504 read with 34 of the Indian
Penal Code further the charge-sheet filed thereof.
2) The FIR has been lodged against Applicant No.1, who is the
husband and Applicant No.2, who is the mother-in-law of Respondent No.2.
It is alleged in the FIR that Applicant No.1 and Respondent No.2 got
married on 22nd January, 2022, which was an arranged marriage. It is
alleged that, immediately after the marriage, Applicant No.1 forced
Respondent No.2 to consume liquor. After one month of marriage, both
Applicants started harassing Respondent No.2. After a while, Applicant
No.1 informed Respondent No.2 that he was romantically involved with
another lady and only because of his family pressure, he married
Respondent No.2.
2.1) The Applicant No.1 used to indulge in altercation with
Respondent No.2 over petty issues and Applicant No.2 used to support
Applicant No.1, thereby dominating Respondent No.2. Hence, Respondent
No.2 informed her parents about the said domestic violence, upon which
her parents advised her to remain calm and assured her that the situation
will change. However, the atrocities continued. In the month of February
2023, Respondent No.2 conceived from Applicant No.1. The Applicants
thereafter cautioned Respondent No.2 from consuming any other food
except the one provided by Applicants. They further warned Respondent
KVM APL 813-2024.doc
No.2 that she should only beget a male child with a fair complexion.
2.2) Accordingly, Applicant No.2 started administering medicines
for 7 days which purportedly assist in begetting a male child. However, on
23rd March, 2023, Respondent No.2 suffered a miscarriage while she was at
her parents house. On 1st May, 2023, Respondent No.2 returned back to her
matrimonial house. Within few days of returning back, there was an
altercation between Respondent No.2 and Applicant No.1 over a petty issue
wherein he allegedly hurled epithets against her. The Applicant No.1 called
the parents of Respondent No.2 and informed them about the altercation.
The parents of Respondent No.2 on the very next day, visited the house of
Applicants and made their best efforts to settle the disputes amicably.
However, Applicant No.1 was adamant over his demand that Respondent
No.2 shall leave the matrimonial home. As the efforts to resolve the dispute
between Applicant No.1 and Respondent No.2 failed, Respondent No.2 had
to leave her matrimonial home. Thereafter, Applicant No.1 expressed his
disinclination to continue co-habitation with Respondent No.2 and
immediately filed a divorce petition.
2.3) The Respondent No.2 thereafter moved an Application with
Bharosa Cell, Pune Police, in order to resolve the disputes between her and
Applicant No.1 amicably. However, as nothing fruitful could be achieved,
Respondent No.2 filed the impugned FIR.
3) It is submitted on behalf of Applicants that, the FIR lodged by
KVM APL 813-2024.doc
Respondent No.2 is completely false, frivolous, concocted and the same has
been lodged with a sole malafide intention for falsely implicating Applicants
in the present case, so that they have to face the rigors of uncalled
prosecution which would held no result and will kill the precious time of
the Hon'ble Court. It is further submitted that anticipatory bail application
of Applicants was allowed by the Sessions Court. The charge-sheet has
already been filed and nothing comes out of it on reading of the charge-
sheet.
4) Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and
Advocate for Respondent No.2 strenuously opposed the Application and
submitted that, perusal of the FIR and charge-sheet would show that, there
is ample material against both Applicants to proceed against them for the
offence under Sections 323, 377, 498-A, 323, 504 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. The Applicant No.1 was in the habit of forcing
Respondent No.2 for anal intercourse. It is further submitted that once
charge-sheet is filed, this Court should not entertain the present
Application. The statements of witnesses and the facts that have come on
record clearly show that, the offences as alleged are made out against the
Applicants. The Applicants/accused persons needs to face trial and the FIR
and charge-sheet cannot be quashed, at this stage.
5) We have heard learned Advocates of both the sides and have
considered the documents on record.
KVM APL 813-2024.doc
6) For quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, it has to be seen whether the allegations in the
complaint/F.I.R. and charge-sheet prima facie indicate that there are serious
allegations against the accused persons of having committed an offence.
Present Application has been filed by the accused who are related to
Respondent No.2, being husband and mother-in-law respectively.
7) The specific allegations made in the FIR against Applicants,
that after marriage, Applicant No.1 used to taunt Respondent No.2 on her
physical features. He also used to force her to drink alcohol with him. The
Applicant No.2 who is mother of Applicant No.1 and mother-in-law of
Respondent No.2 used to support Applicant No.1 when he used to taunt
Respondent No.2. It is also stated in the FIR that, when Respondent No.2
conceived from Applicant No.1, Applicant No.2 forced Respondent No.2 to
take certain medicines on the grounds that on consuming the medicines,
she will give birth to a fair male child. It is stated that due to the said
medicines, there was miscarriage. In our view, it will be necessary to
understand whether due to the said medicine which Applicants had given to
Respondent No.2, there was a miscarriage. So also, there is specific
allegation in the FIR that Applicant No.1 used to indulge into anal sexual
intercourse with Respondent No.2.
8) The FIR in detail records specific allegations made by
Respondent No.2, against both the Applicants. The police have recorded
KVM APL 813-2024.doc
statements of the witnesses and have accordingly filed the charge-sheet. A
copy of the charge-sheet with statements is annexed to the present
proceedings. After going through the same, one can gather that prima facie
case is made out against the Applicants in consonance with the settled
principles of law. In our view, in such a situation, the parties would be
required to face trial.
9) The Supreme Court in the cases of (i) State of Haryana & Ors.
vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, (ii) Rajeev Kourav vs. Baisahab
& others, (2020) 3 SCC 317 and (iii) Kaptan Singh vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others, (2021) 9 SCC 35 , has held that, exercise of powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings is an exception and not
a rule. Appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing
of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
10) In a recent decision in the case of CBI vs. Aryan Singh, AIR
2023 SC 1987, the Supreme Court has held that, while examining the
power under Section 482, the High Court should not conduct a mini trial.
Similarly in the case of State of Odisha vs. Pratima Mohanty and others,
(2022) 16 SCC 703, the Supreme Court has held that once the charge-sheet
is filed, the High Court should be reluctant to quash the complaint.
Paragraph no.8.2 of the Judgment reads as under :
8.2 It is trite that the power of quashing should be
exercised sparingly and with circumspection and in rare cases.
KVM APL 813-2024.doc
As per the settled proposition of law while examining an
FIR/complaint quashing of which is sought, the court cannot
embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness
of allegations made in the FIR/complaint. Quashing of a
complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than any
ordinary rule. Normally the criminal proceedings should not
be quashed in exercise of powers under section 482 CrPC
when after a thorough investigation the charge-sheet has been
filed. At the stage of discharge and/or considering the
application under section 482 CrPC the courts are not
required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or
evidence in detail as if conducting the mini-trial. As held by
this court the powers under section 482 CrPC are very wide,
but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more
cautious. It casts all onerous and more diligent duty on the
Court.
[Emphasis supplied]
11) The Supreme Court in case of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam &
Others vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2022) 6 SCC 599 , while allowing the
Appeal, in Paragraph No. 14 of its Judgment made observations about the
Judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Preeti Gupta vs. State of
Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667. The said Paragraph No.14 reads as under:-
" 14. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, it
has also been observed: (SCC pp. 676-77, paras 32-36)
"32. It is a matter of common experience that most
of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are
filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues
KVM APL 813-2024.doc
without proper deliberations. We come across a
large number of such complaints which are not even
bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the
same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine
cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of
serious concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have
enormous social responsibility and obligation to
ensure that the social fibre of family life is not
ruined or demolished. They must ensure that
exaggerated versions of small incidents should not
be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of
the complaints are filed either on their advice or
with their concurrence. The learned members of the
Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain
its noble traditions and should treat every complaint
under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and
must make serious endeavour to help the parties in
arriving at an amicable resolution of that human
problem. They must discharge their duties to the
best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre,
peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact.
The members of the Bar should also ensure that one
complaint should not lead to multiple cases.
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of
the complaint the implications and consequences
are not properly visualised by the complainant that
such complaint can lead to insurmountable
KVM APL 813-2024.doc
harassment, agony and pain to the complainant,
accused and his close relations.
35. The ultimate object of justice is to find
out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the
innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in
majority of these complaints. The tendency of
implicating the husband and all his immediate
relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after
the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to
ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be
extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these
complaints and must take pragmatic realities into
consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases.
The allegations of harassment of husband's close
relations who had been living in different cities and
never visited or rarely visited the place where the
complainant resided would have an entirely
different complexion. The allegations of the
complaint are required to be scrutinised with great
care and circumspection.
36. Experience reveals that long and
protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony
and bitterness in the relationship amongst the
parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge
that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband
or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even
for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an
amicable settlement altogether. The process of
KVM APL 813-2024.doc
suffering is extremely long and painful." "
[Emphasis supplied]
12) In the present proceedings, the charge-sheet has been already
filed in the year 2024 before Judicial Magistrate First Class, 9 th Court,
Shivaji Nagar, Pune. As this Court had granted stay to the trial proceedings
by Order dated 25th November, 2024 the matter before the Trial Court did
not proceed further.
13) After considering the contents of FIR and the various
documents on record annexed to the Charge-sheet, we are satisfied that
prima facie it constitutes the ingredients of the offences alleged under
Sections 498A, 323, 377, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Taking into
account the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions
referred to above, we find that there are no merits in the present
Application and the same deserves to be dismissed.
14) Before parting with this judgment, we would also like to note
the conduct of Advocate appearing for Applicants, while arguing the matter.
Today, he appeared virtually and even on the earlier date, advocate for
Applicants did not appear physically before this Court and made his
submissions on a virtual platform. As we found there were technical
glitches in connection, we kept back the matter directing Advocate to
appear physically before us, however, he did not attend the Court physically
and made his submissions virtually. The conduct of Advocate for Applicants
KVM APL 813-2024.doc
even on the virtual hearing was not appreciable.
14.1) As Advocate appearing for Applicants offered to amicably settle
the matrimonial discord by paying a one time lumpsum amount to
Respondent No.2. Advocate appearing for Respondent No.2 responded on
instructions with an offer of Rs.35,00,000/-. However, Advocate for
Applicant No.1 only offered Rs.5,00,000/- as settlement amount.
14.2) It has been shown to us from the documents tendered by
Advocate appearing for Respondent No.2, the financial status of Applicants
as under :-
(i) The ROC, records that shows Applicant No.1 is a director
of company viz. Var Interiors Private Limited. Print of ROC
records are tendered before this Court.
(ii) The documents showing that, Applicants are residing in a
house which is ground plus one storey with two shops in front
side. In the cause title, it has been shown that Applicants are
staying in this house at Pashan Area in Pune.
(iii) 7/12 extract of land properties showing various lands in
the name of Applicants.
(iv) In Someshwari Wadi, Pune, there are nine rooms owned
by Applicants.
(v) An Ertiga Hybrid car is in the name of Applicant No.2.
(vi) Two, two-wheelers one in the name of Applicant No.1
KVM APL 813-2024.doc
and another in the name of father of Applicant No.1.
(vii) One more house is owned by Applicants, which is ground
plus two storey.
14.3) With such kind of financial status of Applicants, we are
surprised with the one time settlement offer of Rs.5,00,000/- offered by
Applicants to Respondent No.2. In the earlier hearing, Advocate for
Applicants appeared online and submitted that the offer of Rs.35,00,000/-
made by Respondent No.2, would be too big amount for Applicants to pay
and they will require time to make arrangement for collecting the said
amount. It is pertinent here to note that advocate for Applicants did not
mention the length of time he requires to collect the said amount. However,
on the next date, Advocate for Applicants only offered a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- as a one time settlement amount to be paid to Respondent
No.2.
15) We are at pains to note that, the Advocate for Applicant is not
considerate in following the observations made by the Supreme Court in
Para No.14 in Kahkashan Kausar's case (supra).
16) Hence, the Criminal Application stands dismissed.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
