Partly allowed

Prashant S/O. Namdeo Wagh and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Jun 2018APPLN/471/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court ordered the quashing of the first information report against applicants who are sister-in-laws of the accused husband and their respective husbands. The court found vague allegations and no specific acts of harassment against them, concluding that continuing proceedings against them would be an abuse of the process of law. The applic

What did the court decide?

Application of applicants No. 3 to 10 (sisters, their husbands, and mother-in-law of sister) allowed; application of applicant No. 1 (husband) and No. 2 (mother-in-law) rejected.

Prashant S/O. Namdeo Wagh and Others Vs the State of… — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

Appln471-18.odt

¶2

uiIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 471 OF 2018

¶4

1. Prashant s/o Namdeo Wagh Age 40 years, Occu: Business, R/o 57, Khemaji Ajabe Nagar, Near Jain Temple, Sakri Road, Dhule, District Dhule

¶5

... Applicants
(Orig.Accused)

¶6

2. Indubai w/o Namdeo Wagh Age 68 years, Occu: Household R/o 118, At Post Morane, Laling, Dhule.

¶7

3. Sunita Ravindra Shirsath Age 45 years, Occu: Household R/o At Post Morane Laling, Dhule.

¶8

4. Varsha w/o Sachin Magare, Age 36 years, Occu: Houehold R/o 215/8842, Kanamwar Nagar, Vikroli (East), BB-8, Mumbai.

¶9

5. Nandisha Namdeo Wagh, age 35 years, Occu: Household R/o 118, At Post Morane Laling, Dhule, District Dhule

¶10

6. Manisha Rutesh Sonawane Age 38 years, Occu: Household R/o 215/8442, Kanamwar nagar, Vikroli (East), BB-9, Mumbai.

¶11

7. Anita Sanjay Mohite Age 42 years, Occu: Household R/o Flat No.4, Sampada Apt., Sakri Road, behind Maleriya Office, Saptsrungi Colon, Dhule, Dist. Dhule

¶12

8. Ravindra Suka Shirsath Age 48 years, Occu: Nil R/o At Post Morane, Laling, Dhule, Dist. Dhule

¶13

1/7

¶14

Appln471-18.odt

¶15

9. Sanja Digambar Mohite Age 47 years, Occu: Business R/o Flat No. 4, Sampada Apartment,Sakri Road, Behind Maleriya Office, Saptsrungi colony, Dhule, Dist.Dhule.

¶16

10. Kalabai w/o w/o Sukha Shirsath Age 67 years, Occu: Household R/o Plot no.137, Karuna Vihar Housing Society, Ajabe Nagar Near Jain Mandir, Sakri Road, Dhule.

¶17

VERSUS

¶18

1. The State of Maharashtra Through Police SInspector, Ramanand Nagar Police Station, Jalgaon,Dist. Jalgaon. District Jalna

¶19

2. Deepmala Prashant wagh ... Respondents Age 35 years, Occu: Household R/o Adarsha Nagar, Plot No. 29/2, Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon.

¶20

Mr.Maheshkumar S. Sonawane, Advocate for the applicants
Mr.S. J. Salgare, APP for the respondent State.
Mr.Vijay V. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶21

CORAM:T. V. NALAWADE AND
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE::22nd June, 2018

¶22

JUDGMENT ( Per K. L. Wadane,J.):

¶23

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the
consent of the parties, the application is taken up for
final hearing.

¶24

2. The application is filed under section 482 of

¶25

2/7

¶26

Appln471-18.odt

¶27

the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the F.I.R.
bearing Crime No. 174 of 2017 registered with the
Ramanand Nagar Police Station, Jalgaon for the offence
punishable under sections 498-A, j323, 504, 506 read
with 34 of the Indian Penal code.

¶28

3. Applicant No.1 is husband of the complainant.
Applicant no. 2 is mother of applicant No.1, Applicant
Nos. 3 to 7 are sisters of applicant No.1, Applicant
No. 8 is husband of Applicant No.3 and Applicant No.9
is the husband of Applicant No.7 whereas the applicant
No.10 is the mother of applicant No.8 and mother-in-law
of applicant No.3- sister.

¶29

4. It is the case of the complainant- Deepmala
that she got married with applicant No.1- Prashant
Wagh in the year 2004. According to the complainant she
was treated well initially for and thereafter her
mother in-law, husband and in-laws started her taunting
abusing on her cooking. It is alleged that that her
husband Prashant and mother-in-law were demanding Rs.
15 lakhs from the father of the complainant and as the
demand was not fulfilled, she was mentally and
physically harassed at the hands of her husband and
mother-in-law and other applicants. It is alleged that

¶30

3/7

¶31

Appln471-18.odt

¶32

in the year 2008 complainant was asked to bring Rs.2
lakhs from her parents for construction of additional
floor of house and on that count was driven her out
of the house. At that time she was pregnant of four
months. Thereafter there was compromise and she
resumed company of her husband and in-laws. Alleging
such ill-treatment and harassment at the hands of the

¶33

applicants, respondent No.2 lodged complaint with the
police and accordingly the offence as referred above
came to be registered against the applicants accused.

¶34

5. During investigation, the Investigating Officer
has recorded statements of various witnesses i.e.
father, mother, brothers of the complainant and other
witnesses. Statement of all these witnesses are in line

¶35

with the contents of the first information report.
Almost all the allegationswhich are appearing in the
first information report are reproduced in the

¶36

statements of the witnesses.

¶37

6. Heard Mr. Maheshkumar S. Sonawane, learned

¶38

counsel for the applicants, Mr. S. J. Salgare,
learned APP for the respondent State and Mr.Vijay V.
Deshmukh, learned counsel for respondent No.2

¶39

4/7

¶40

7. We have carefully examined the First information
report. It appears that that specific allegations of
demand of money and consequent harassment are made
against the applicant Nos. 1 husband and applicant
No.2 Mother-in-law. The other respondents are
relatives of the husband of the complainant i.e.
sisters and their respective husbands. Applicant Nos.
3, 4, 6 and 7 are married sisters of applicant No.1 and
they are residing separately at their respective
matrimonial house. Applicant No. 8 is husband of
Applicant No.3 and Applicant No.9 is the husband of
Applicant No.7, whereas the applicant No.10 is the
mother of applicant No.8 and mother-in-law of applicant
No.3 They all are residing separately. There was no
occasion for these respondents to harass or torture
on the grounds as stated in the first information
report. All the family members of the applicant no.1
husband appears to have been roped in the offence. One
can understand about the allegations against husband

¶41

and mother-in-law. But herein the present case,
vague allegations are made against applicant Nos.3 to 9
who are sister-in-laws and their husbands and

¶42

applicant No.10 who is mother-in-law of sister of
applicant No.1. There is no specific evidence on record

¶43

5/7

¶44

Appln471-18.odt to show that applicant Nos.3 to 10 have ill-treated the complainant in any manner.

¶45

8. On perusal of the statements of witnesses, it
appears that what is stated in the first information
report by the complainant against the applicants have
been repeated. Main allegations of demand of money and
harassment are against respondent No.1 and 2. There is

¶46

no material particular quoting any specific incident
of visit or about ill-treatment or harassment against
applicant Nos. 3 to 10 so as to attract ingredients

¶47

of section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Allegations against applicant Nos. 3 to 10 are vague

¶48

general in nature. No specific act or overt-act is
attributed to them.

¶49

9. In view of the above, nothing can be achieved

¶50

if the criminal proceedings are allowed to be
continued against applicant Nos. 3 to 10. Thus, to

¶51

prevent the abuse of process of law, we find that
discretion needs to be exercised to the extent of
applicant Nos. 3 to 10. Hence following order:

¶52

O R D E R

¶53

i.Application of applicant No. 3 Sunita Shirsath, 4)

¶54

Varsha Magare, 5) Nandisha Wagh, 6) Manisha

¶55

Appln471-18.odt Sonawane, 7) Anita Mohite, 8) Ravindra Shirsath, 9) Sanjay Mohite and 10) Kalabai Shirsath is hereby allowed in terms of prayer clause (B).

¶56

ii. Application of Applicant No.1 Prashant Wagh and Applicant No.2 Indubai Wagh stands rejected. Interim relief granted to them is vacated.

¶57

iii.Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.

¶58

(K. L. WADANE, J.) (T. V. NALAWADE, J.)

¶59

JPC

¶60

7/7

Prashant S/O. Namdeo Wagh and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant S/O. Namdeo Wagh and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Baburao Pingle and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaikh Najir Shaikh Umar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hanumant S/O. Sakharam Waghmode Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Balu S/O. Arjun Jadhav and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Parasram S/O. Lalsing Rathod and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sadashiv Govinda Tayde and Ors. Vs the State of Mah