Bombay High Court
Bandu Ramchandra Ganjare vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps, Washim ... on 15 October, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:10941-DB
apl.1295.2021.Judgment.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1295 OF 2021
1. Bandu Ramchandra Ganjare,
Aged about 43 Years,
Occupation : Labourer,
2. Sou. Shila Bandu Ganjare,
Aged about 38 Years,
Occupation : Household,
Both R/o Mantri Park, Washim,
Taluka and District Washim. .... APPLICANTS
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra, Through
Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Washim (City),
Washim,
Taluka and District Washim.
2. Hemant Rajaram Dewade,
Aged about 30 Years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. Sadegaon,
Taluka and District Parbhani. .... NON-APPLICANTS
-------------------------------------------
Mr. R. S. Kurekar, Counsel for the applicants.
Mr. N. B. Jawade, APP for non-applicant No.1/State.
-------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 29.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 15.10.2025
JUDGMENT :
(PER : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
1. Admit.
2. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel
of the parties.
apl.1295.2021.Judgment.odt
3. Present application is preferred by the applicants for
quashing of the First Information Report in connection with
Crime No.642/2020 registered with Police Station Washim (City),
Washim, District Washim for the offence punishable under
Sections 304-B, 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and charge sheet No.29/2021 dated
27.03.2021 in Regular Criminal Case No.77/2021.
4. The non-applicant No.2 Hemant Dewade lodged the
First Information Report (in short 'FIR') with Washim (City) Police
Station on 15.06.2020, alleging that he is resident of Sadegaon
District Parbhani and his father is an agriculturist. His sister
namely Mamta got married with Gajanan Ganjare, R/o Washim
on 10.06.2017. Out of the said wedlock, his sister begotten one
son namely Om. The present applicant No.1 Bandu Ramchandra
Ganjare is the brother-in-law and the applicant No.2 Shila
Ganjare is his wife. As per the allegation, after marriage, his
sister was ill-treated by the present applicants and other family
members by demanding an amount of Rs.One Lakh from her
parents for booking a flat. It is further alleged that she was
ill-treated to the extent that her mother-in-law was beating her
and her husband was also physically and mentally ill-treating her
by assaulting for not bringing the amount. In the result, the
death of the deceased was caused as she has consumed the
apl.1295.2021.Judgment.odt
poison. On the basis of said report, police have registered the
crime against the present applicants as well as other co-accused.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants, who
submitted that from the recitals of the FIR as well as the various
statements recorded during the investigation shows that present
applicants never resided along with the deceased and her
husband and in-laws, they were residing separately. The general
and omnibus allegations are levelled against the present
applicants merely because they are the close relatives of the
husband of the deceased. As far as the recitals of the FIR are
concerned, which are only to the extent that the present
applicants have also ill-treated her, however, no specific
instances are narrated as far as the present applicants are
concerned. He submitted that considering the nature of the
allegations, as the present applicants never resided along with
the deceased and her husband and general allegations are
levelled against them, in view of that, the FIR against them
deserves to be quashed.
6. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the same
and invited our attention towards the recitals of the FIR and
submitted that prior to one day of the incident i.e. on
09.06.2020, deceased has called her father and disclosed that
she is assaulted by her husband and mother-in-law, after ten
apl.1295.2021.Judgment.odt
minutes, again she called and disclosed that all the accused
including the present applicants have assaulted her. Thus, there
is a disclosure by the deceased prior to her death to the parents
which is sufficiently attracts the offence against the present
applicants and therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.
7. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the
investigation papers, there is no dispute as to the fact that the
applicants are residing separately, but they are residing in the
same city. The statement of the informant specifically shows
that after the marriage, not only the husband, but also the other
in-laws were also instrumental harassing and ill-treating the
deceased and he has narrated the specific instance that on
09.06.2020, the deceased has called her father and disclosed
that her husband and mother-in-law were assaulting her and
called him to take her back. The informant immediately started
to take her back, but after ten minutes, again he received a
phone call that if she came to the parent's house, then again her
husband will not allow her to come back, and therefore, he did
not go fetch her back. On 10.06.2020, again he received a call
and deceased has disclosed that the present applicants as well as
her husband and mother-in-law are assaulting her. During the
investigation, the statements of other witnesses are also
recorded. The statement of Rajashree Anil Kukadi also shows
apl.1295.2021.Judgment.odt
that the family members of the informant had been to the
matrimonial home of the deceased to give them an
understanding.
8. In the light of observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of State of Haryana and others Vs Bhajan Lal and
others reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 while considering
the application for quashing of the FIR under Section 482 the
following principles are required to be taken into consideration.
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety
do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code
except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview
of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of
the same do not disclose the commission of any offence
and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
apl.1295.2021.Judgment.odt
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge."
9. By applying these principles, at this stage, no case is
made out for quashing of the FIR, in view of that, the application
deserves to be rejected.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J)
Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate Sarkate.
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 15/10/2025 17:12:53
