Bombay High Court
Chetan Ashok Walunj And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 2 January, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:1488-DB
1
3580.2023APPLN.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3580 OF 2023
1. Chetan S/o Ashok Walunj
Age : 30 years, Occ : Pri. Service,
R/o D-402, Shree Krupa Society,
Plot No.78, Sector 35, Kamothe,
New Mumbai - 410 209
2. Ashok S/o Haribhau Walunj
Age : 67 years, Occ : Agri.,
R/o Tambe Pune,
Tq. & Dist. Pune.
3. Lata W/o Ashok Walunj,
Age : 57 years, Occ : Household,
R/o Tambe Pune,
Tq. & Dist. Pune.
4. Nilesh S/o Ashok Walunj
Age : 27 years, Occ : Education,
R/o Flat No.D-402, Shreekrupa,
Plot No.78, Sector-35, Kamothe,
Panvel, Raigarh, Maharashtra - 410 206
5. Chandani W/o Amol Ghadge
Age : 33 years, Occ : Household,
R/o Bacche Wadi, Hedruj,
Pait, Pune, Maharashtra - 410 505
6. Amol S/o Sitaram Ghadge
Age : 29 years, Occ : Private Service,
R/o Bacche Wadi, Hedruj,
Pait, Pune, Maharashtra - 410 505.
..APPLICANTS
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station, Supa,
Tq. Supa, Dist. Ahmednagar.
2
3580.2023APPLN.odt
2. Suvidha W/o Chetan Walunj
Age : 23 years, Occ : Household,
R/o C/o Ujwala Jalindar Gut,
Wadegavhan, Tq. Parner,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
..RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for the applicants : Mr.G.K. Muneshwar
APP for Respondent- State : Mr. A.R. Kale
Advocate for respondent No.2 : Mr.V.P. Latange
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 2nd JANUARY, 2025
JUDGMENT (PER ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) :
. The applicants in the present matter are arrayed as accused
Nos.1 to 6 in F.I.R. registered with Police Station, Supa,
Dist.Ahmednagar on 20.06.2023, for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code (I.P.C.), vide F.I.R. No.0282/2023. Respondent No.2 is the
informant. Her relations with the applicants are as under :-
(i) Applicant No.1 - husband
(ii) Applicant No.2 - father-in-law
(iii) Applicant No.3 - mother-in-law
(iv) Applicant No.4 - brother-in-law
(v) Applicant No.5 - sister-in-law (married)
(vi) Applicant No.6 - husband of sister-in-law
3
3580.2023APPLN.odt
2. We are considering the present application only for
applicant Nos.2 to 6, in as much as, the application was withdrawn for
applicant No.1 – husband on 23.10.2023 itself.
3. Respondent No.2 states that her marriage with applicant
No.1 was solemnized on 03.05.2022. She has stated that initially for a
period of 15 days after marriage she resided with applicant Nos.1 to 4
at village Tambe, Dist. Pune i.e. the native village of her in-laws and
thereafter she along with her husband had shifted to Kamothe,
Dist.Raigad. She claims that after they removed to Kamothe,
Dist.Raigad, she was treated well for around 20 to 25 days and
thereafter, husband and in-laws suggested that since she has acquired
qualification of B. Pharm, she should get an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-
from her father for starting business of Medicine Shop at Mumbai. She
alleges that she was repeatedly abused and also beaten up in order to
force her and her parents to accede to the said demand. She has further
alleged that on 06.12.2022 at about 11.00 a.m., applicant Nos.1 to 4
started beating and abusing her again asking her to bring amount of
Rs.15,00,000/- from her parents and further that they expelled her
from her matrimonial home by giving clear understanding that unless
she brings the said amount, she will not be allowed to come back to
matrimonial home. The contents of the F.I.R. indicate that initially
4
3580.2023APPLN.odt
respondent No.2 has levelled allegations against her husband and made
omnibus allegations using word “in-laws”. However, with respect to the
alleged incident dated 06.12.2022, she has specifically named applicant
Nos.1 to 4. As regards applicant Nos.5 and 6, who are the married
sister-in-law and her husband respectively, she states that whenever
they used to come at Kamothe, Dist. Raigad, they used to ask her to
bring amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from her father and used to utter
words, which would displease and hurt her. These are the only
allegations against applicant Nos.5 and 6. It is undisputed that
applicant Nos.5 and 6 never resided with applicant Nos.1 to 4.
4. The allegations against applicant Nos.1 to 4 levelled
initially are not definite and also lack details and particulars. However,
the allegation with respect to alleged incident dated 06.12.2022 is a
specific allegation referring to applicant Nos.1 to 4 by their names. In
view of the said allegations, we do not deem it appropriate to quash the
prosecution as against applicant Nos.2 to 4.
5. As regards applicant Nos.5 and 6, it is undisputed that they
are residing separate from the other applicants. The allegation against
them is that whenever they used to visit the matrimonial house of
respondent No.2, they would ask her to bring amount of
5
3580.2023APPLN.odt
Rs.15,00,000/- from her father and used to utter unpleasant words.
According to respondent No.2, she has stayed in her matrimonial home
for a short period from 03.05.2022 i.e. date of marriage till 03.12.2022.
During this period of seven months, according to her everything was
going well for a period of around one and half month. The contents of
F.I.R., so also statements of respondent No.2 and her family members
and relatives, viz :- maternal uncle and cousin that are recorded during
the course of investigation are absolutely silent as regards number of
occasions when applicant Nos.5 and 6 had been to matrimonial home
of respondent no.2, the words they uttered while making demand so
also the date/s of visit and tentative period of stay. The allegations
against applicant Nos.5 and 6 are absolutely vague and wanting in all
material particulars. The allegations against applicant Nos.5 and 6
clearly indicate over implication on the part of respondent No.2. In the
light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of
Preeti Gupta and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in
2010(7) SCC 667, Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others reported in 2012(10) SCC 741 and Kahkashan Kausar and
others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2022(6) SCC 599, it is
the duty of High Courts dealing with quashing petitions with respect to
offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code to be careful
while dealing with allegations against relatives, who stay at a distant
6
3580.2023APPLN.odt
place having regard to realities of strained matrimonial relationship,
which create a tendency to implicate all the family members or near
relations of the husband. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had guided the
High Courts to read between the lines while dealing with allegations
against relatives residing at distant places and exercise great care and
circumspection to guard against over implication. These judgments of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court have been reiterated recently in the matter
of Payal Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in 2024 S.C.C.
Online (SC) 3473.
6. Having regard to the contents of F.I.R. and statements of
witnesses recorded during the course of investigation, we find that
there is absolutely no material against applicant Nos.5 and 6 to permit
continuation of prosecution against them. Continuation of prosecution
against applicant Nos.5 and 6 will, therefore, amount to abuse of the
legal process. We, therefore, hereby quash F.I.R. and criminal case
registered pursuant to the said F.I.R. against applicant Nos.5 and 6.
Hence the order :-
ORDER
(i) The application is disposed of as withdrawn with respect to
applicant No.1 – Chetan S/o Ashok Walunj.
7
3580.2023APPLN.odt
(ii) The application is rejected with respect to applicant No.2- Ashok
S/o Haribhau Walunj, applicant No.3 – Lata W/o Ashok Walunj and
applicant No.4 – Nilesh S/o Ashok Walunj.
(iii) The application is allowed with respect to applicant No.5 –
Chandani W/o Amol Ghadge and applicant No.6 – Amol S/o Sitaram
Ghadge. Accordingly, F.I.R. No.0282/2023 registered with Police
Station, Supa, Dist.Ahmednagar on 20.06.2023, for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code and Regular Criminal Case No.348/2023
pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Parner, Dist.Ahmednagar, are hereby quashed as against applicant
Nos.5 and 6.
[ROHIT W. JOSHI] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
JUDGE JUDGE
sga/
[ad_1]
Source link