Bombay High Court
Mangesh Vikram Kedar And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 27 March, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:10642-DB
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 259 OF 2023
1. Mangesh Vikram Kedar
Age : 30 years, Occ : Education
R/o : Lokashya Nagar, New Police Colony, Beed
Tq. and Dist. Beed
2. Vikram Narayan Kedar
Age : 56 years, Occ : Service,
R/o Lokashya Nagar, New Police Colony, Beed
Tq. And Dist Beed
3. Latabai Vikram Kedar,
Age : 52 years, Occ: household.
4. Nilesh Vikram Kedar,
Age : 33 years, Occu: Private Service,
R/o All of above Beed
5. Sushma Bhairinath Ugade
Age, 31 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. At post Vadshivane,
Tq. Karmala, Dist. Solapur
6. Bhairinath Sahebrao Ugade
Age 40 years, Occu. Service,
R/o. At post Vadshivane,
Tq. Karmala, Dist. Solapur
7. Manda @ Kausalya Babanbhai Bansode
Age : 42 years, Occu. Household
R/o. 341 Gokul Nagar, Althan Tenament,
Bhata Road, Surat City/Surat, State : Gujrat ...Applicants
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Police Inspector,
Police Station, City Police Station, Parali (Vaijinath)
Tq. Parali (V.) Dist. Beed,
2
2. Seema Mangesh Kedar
Age : 30 yrs, Occ : Household,
R/o. Mo. Post, Swami Nagar, Parali City,
Tal. Parali (V) Dist. Beed ...Respondents
...
Advocate for Applicants : Sartaj H. Pathan h/f. Mr. H. P. Bondar
A.P.P. for Respondent/State : Mr. A. R. Kale
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Aashish T. Jadhavar
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 27.03.2025
JUDGMENT (PER ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) :
1. The present application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure inter alia challenging FIR No.250 of 2022
registered with Parali (V) Police Station, Dist. Beed on 10.11.2022 for
the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC") along
with Regular Criminal Case No. 377 of 2022 which is pending before
the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parali (V).
2. Respondent No.2 is the informant and applicants are related to
respondent No.2 as under:-
Applicant No. 1 - Husband
Applicant No. 2 - Father-in-law
Applicant No.3 - Mother-in-law
Applicant No.4 - Brother-in-law
Applicant No.5 - Married Sister-in-law
Applicant No.6 - Husband of applicant No.5
Applicant No.7 - Wife of brother of applicant No.3
3. The marriage of respondent no.2 with applicant no.1 was
solemnized on 14.11.2016. Respondent no.2 has lodged the impugned
FIR on 10.11.2022 alleging that her husband and in-laws i.e. applicants
herein, used to harass her mentally and physically on petty household
issues and also on the ground that she could not conceive a child. It is
alleged that respondent no.2 was not offered her food at times and was
also beaten on trivial grounds. She has alleged that on 20.09.2022
whilst scrolling the content in the mobile of her husband, she found
photographs of her husband/applicant No.1 with wife of brother of
applicant no.3 i.e. applicant no.7. The allegation is that applicant No.1
had illicit relations with wife of his maternal uncle.
4. She states that as she made inquiries with applicant no.1
confronting with him with the said photographs, applicant no.1 had
beaten her physically. She has alleged that her parents-in-law, applicant
nos.2 and 3 and other applicants also abused her on the ground that
she had leveled allegation of illicit relations between applicant Nos.1
and 7. Respondent No.2 has alleged that applicant no.2-father-in-law
and other in-laws forced her to leave the matrimonial home because of
the allegations leveled by her against applicant nos.1 and 7. She has
also alleged that while she was forced to leave the matrimonial home
on 20.09.2022 the applicant nos.1 and 3 forcibly snatched her bag and
ornaments from her. She then states that she had approached the
Women's Counseling Center in order to explore the possibility of
peaceful settlement. However, although applicant nos.1 to 3 i.e.
husband and parents-in-law appeared before the Women's Counseling
Center they were determined not to settle the matter and threatened
respondent no.2 to do whatever she wanted to do.
5. After hearing the matter for a while we had expressed our
disinclination to grant any relief to applicant no.1-husband. Learned
Advocate for the applicants made oral motion on instructions to
withdraw the application as regards applicant no.1. On such oral
motion being made, application was withdrawn as against applicant
no.1 and we proceeded to hear the matter on merits for other
applicants.
6. We have perused the FIR, documents in the charge sheet and
other documents filed by the applicants along with the criminal
application. On going through the FIR and statements recorded under
Section 161 of the Cr. P. C., we find that there are no allegations against
applicant nos.2 to 7 to remotely attract the ingredients of Section 498-A
of IPC. Principal allegations are against applicant no.1-Husband. It
needs to be mentioned that even general allegations are not leveled
against them individually. As regards applicant no.7, it is alleged that
she was involved in illicit relationship with applicant No.1, however,
even if it is assumed to be true the ingredients of Section 498-A will not
be attracted.
7. In view of the aforesaid, continuation of prosecution against
applicant nos.2 to 7 will amount to abuse of the legal process. It is
therefore expedient in the interest of justice to quash the FIR and the
consequential criminal proceeding against them in exercise of powers
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application
is therefore partly allowed and disposed of. Hence we pass the
following order:-
ORDER
(i) The application is disposed of as withdrawn with respect to
applicant no.1-Mangesh Vikram Kedar.
(ii)The application is allowed with respect to applicant no.2-
Vikram Narayan Kedar, applicant no.3- Latabai Vikram Kedar,
Applicant No.4, Nilesh Vikram Kedar, Applicant No.5- Sushma
Bhairinath Ugade, Applicant No.6- Bhairinath Sahebrao
Ugade and Respondent No.7- Manda @ Kausalya Babanbhai
Bansode for the offences punishable under Section 498-A,
323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short "the IPC") and Regular Criminal Case No.
377 of 2022 which is pending before the learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Parali (V) are quashed against them.
[ROHIT W. JOSHI] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
JUDGE JUDGE
Narwade
