Bombay High Court
Parvati W/O Pundalik Shelke vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso Ps ... on 20 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:9500-DB
919 apl 38.21.odt..odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 38 OF 2021
1. Parvati w/o Pundalik Shelke
Aged 28 Yrs.,
Occupation .: Housewife,
R/o.Kumbhi Tahsil, Mangrulpir,
District Washim, Maharashtra ...APPLICANT
// V E R S U S //
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Asegaon,
District Washim
2. Sau. Anita w/o Shrikrishna Shelke
Aged about 29 years,
Occupation -Housewife,
R/o Kumbhi, Tah. Mangrulpir NON-APPLICANTS
District Washim, Maharashtra
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Yash Venkatram, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr Nikhil Joshi, APP for non-applicant No. 1/State.
Mr. Kshitikz Jain, Adv. h/f Mr. S.S. Dhengle, Advocate for non-
applicant No.2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT :- 11.09.2025
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT :- 20.09.2025
O R A L J U D G M E N T : (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE J.)
1. Heard.
919 apl 38.21.odt..odt
2
2. Admit. Heard finally by the consent of learned counsel
for the parties.
3. This is an application for quashing of First Information
Report bearing No.0218/2016 dated 12.10.2016 and charge-sheet
dated 06.12.2016 registered with non-applicant No.1 on the
complaint lodged by non-applicant No.2. The offences complained
of are punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'). After completion of
the investigation, charge-sheet is filed and the applicant herein has
challenged the said charge sheet dated 06.12.2016 and Regular
Criminal Case No.194/2016 pending before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Mangrulpir.
4. While issuing notice this Court stayed the proceedings
before the Court below vide order dated 13.01.2021 and on a
request of the counsels for the parties, referred the matter to
mediation. However, unfortunately, as matter is not settled, matter
was placed before us and we have heard the matter on merits.
919 apl 38.21.odt..odt
3
5. We have heard Mr. Yash Venkatraman, learned counsel
for the applicant, Mr. Nikhil Joshi, learned APP for State and Mr.
Jain, Advocate holding for Mr. S.S. Dhengale, Advocate for non-
applicant No.2.
6. As can be seen from the First Information Report filed
by the non-applicant No.2 on 12.10.2016 she lodged the report
with non-applicant No.1 that at about 10.30 a.m. in the morning
the applicant herein came to her house and demanded that
properties standing in the name of first informant be given to her
(applicants) to which she refused. Enraged by this, the applicant
abused her. On hearing the quarrel, husband of the first informant
namely Shrikrushna came on the scene and tried to pacify both of
them. However, at the same time one Dhayaneshwar Dhage came
on the scene along with stick in his hand and beat the husband of
non-applicant No.2 with the said stick. At the same time Ravi
Gajanan Thakre also beat the husband of non-applicant No.2 by
fists and blows. On the basis of these facts, first information
report in question is lodged.
919 apl 38.21.odt..odt
4
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
offences complained of are not made out as against the present
applicant i.e. Parvati in as much as only allegation against her is
that she abused non-applicant No.2. He further states that there
is no intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace and
there is no injury to reputation. In other words, it is submission of
learned counsel for the applicant that even if the allegations in the
first information report are taken on their face value, no offences
much less as mentioned in the first information report are made
out.
8. Per contra Mr. Nikhil Joshi, learned APP vehemently
opposed submissions of the applicant and states that the
averments in the First Information Report squarely make out an
offence punishable in various sections of I.P.C. as mentioned
therein.
9. Learned counsel for non-applicant No.2 also supports
the submissions of learned APP.
919 apl 38.21.odt..odt
5
10. In the backdrop of these facts, we have perused the
material placed before us which include statement of the various
witnesses as also other material. As can be seen from the said
material Mr. Pundlik Shelke had a wife namely Panchafula and son
namely Shrikrushna. The complainant in the First Information
Report is Anita i.e. wife of Shrikrushna while the accused is
second wife of Pundlik. It is also admitted position on record that
first wife of Pundlik namely Panchfula Shelke expired on
20.08.2011 after which said Pundlik Shelke performed second
marriage with Parvati. It is this second marriage which seems to
be the bone of contentions between parties. It can thus, safely be
said that dispute is with respect to the share of the property and
parties have been litigating in various forums. It can also be seen
from the record that non-applicant No.2 as well as her husband
namely Shrikrushna had filed various police complaints against the
applicant as also Pundlik Shelke some of which are as under:-
(a) FIR No.3012/2014 registered with Police Station
Asegaon for offence punishable under Sections 294 and 506 of the
I.P.C. in which after full fledge trial, Pundlik Shelke was acquitted
by the trial Court in RCC No.286/2014
919 apl 38.21.odt..odt
6
(b) First Information Report No.172/2015
registered with Police Station, Mangrulpir for offence punishable
under Sections 354, 294, 323 and 506 read with 34 of the IPC
bearing RCC No.205/2016 which is pending.
(c) First Information Report No.218/2016
dated 12.10.2016 which was subject matter of challenge before
this Court in APL No.237/2017 in which said First Information
Report and charge-sheet was set aside.
11. It is also noteworthy to mention that admittedly civil
suit bearing RCC No.36/2013 is pending before the Civil Judge,
Junior Division, Mangrulpir between the same parties.
12. In the conspectus of these facts and the avements in
the First Information Report, it can be seen that only role
attributed to present applicant is an abuse and averment does not
depict use of any dangerous weapon. Therefore, in our opinion,
Section 324 of the IPC is not attracted.
13. As far as Sections 504 and 506 are concerned, there
is no intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace
919 apl 38.21.odt..odt
7
which is a sine-qua-non for committing offence punishable under
said Section. Further more there is no threatening to any person
with any injury to his person or reputation of property and
therefore, offence as defined under Section 503 and punishable
under Section 506 is also not made out.
14. It can thus, be seen that no offence as stated in the
First Information Report is made out p rima-facie. The situation
would directly covered by the parameters laid down by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the celebrated judgment of State of Haryana and
others vs. Bhajanlal and others reported in 1992 Supp(1)
Supreme Court Cases 335 where it is stated as under:-
"(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.
(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.
15. We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that
continuation of criminal proceedings against applicant would
919 apl 38.21.odt..odt
8
amount to an abuse of process of Court. We therefore, think it to
be a fit case for exercising our inherent powers under Section 482
of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Hence, we proceed to pass following order:-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Application is allowed.
(ii) We quash and set aside First Information Report
No.218/2016 dated 12.10.2016 and charge-sheet dated
06/12/2016 in Regular Criminal Case No.194/2016 pending
before Judicial Magistrate First Class Mangrulpir for offences
punishable under Sections 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34
of the I.P.C. against present applicant.
16. The criminal application stands disposed of in
the above said terms.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
[NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J] [URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.]
manisha
Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 22/09/2025 10:45:06
