Partly allowed

Savita W/O. Pintu Salunke and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Jun 2018APPLN/475/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal application filed by relatives of a husband seeking quashing of FIR under Section 498-A IPC. The High Court allowed the application, holding that allegations were vague, general, and involved non-resident relatives, constituting an abuse of process requiring curtailment.

What did the court decide?

FIR registered against applicant Nos. 1 to 6 is quashed and set aside as an abuse of process; application of applicant No. 7 is dismissed.

Savita W/O. Pintu Salunke and Others Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 CrAppln.475.18.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.475 OF 2018

¶4

1. Savita w/o. Pintu Salunke,
 (Sister in law),
 Age : Major, Occu : Housewife,
 R/o. Rani Park, Dindoli, Surat,
 Tal. And District Surat.

¶5

2. Pintu s/o. Jagannath Salunke
 (brother in law)
 Age : Major, Occu:Service –Police
 Department, R/o. Rani Park,
 Dindoli, Surat, Tal. And
 District Surat.

¶6

3. Gangabai Jagannath Salunke
 Age 65, Occu : House wife,
 R/o. Sherul, Tal. Malegaon,
 Dist. Nashik.

¶7

4. Chhaya Devidas Rane,
 Age : Major, Occu : House wife,
 R/o Mahavir Colony, Shirpur,
 Tal. & District - Dhule.

¶8

5. Sudam s/o. Janku Chavan,
 (Distance Relative)
 Age : Major, Occu : Retired Policeman
 Agriculturist, R/o. Police Line,
 Nandurbar, Tal and Dist. Nandurbar.

¶9

6. Shobabai Bahusaheb Mali,
 (Distance Relative)
 Age : Major, Occu : Housewife,
 R/o. Aghar, Tq. Malegaon, Tal & Dist.
 Nashik.

¶10

7. Kamalabai Bhagwan Salunke,
 (Mother in Law) Age – 63 years,
 Occupation – Housewife,
 R/o. Deopur Dhule,
 Tal and Dist. Dhule...Applicants

¶11

1/5

¶12

2 CrAppln.475.18.odt

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

1. The State of Maharashtra,
 through the Police Inspector,
 Deopur Police Station, Dhule,
 Tq. & Dist. Dhule.
 (Copy to be served to the Government
 Pleader, High Court of Judicature at
 Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad.)

¶15

2. Anita w/o. Santosh Salunke,
(Complainant)
 Age – 24 years, Occu : Housewife,
 R/o. Shriraj Nagar, behind
 Kalyani Banglow, Deopur Dhule.
 Presently residi9ng at Ner,
 Tal & Dist. Dhule ...

¶16

 ...Respondents

¶17

...

¶18

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Ashok D. Raut
APP for respondent/State : Mr. M. M. Nerlikar
Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mrs. Monica Dahat h/f.
V. P. Raje

¶19

CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE &
K. L. WADANE, JJ.

¶20

DATE:20th June, 2018

¶21

JUDGMENT (PER K.L. WADANE, J)

¶22

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With

¶23

the consent of the parties, the application is taken up
for final hearing.

¶24

2.The respondent No. 2 - Anita w/o Santosh
Salunke, lodged a complaint to the Police Station,

¶25

2/5

¶26

3 CrAppln.475.18.odt

¶27

Deopur, against the present applicants and her husband
with the allegation that they were ill-treating her on
account of illegal demand. On the basis of first

¶28

information report given by the respondent No. 2,
offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504,

¶29

506, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is
registered against the applicants and the husband of

¶30

the complainant. Going through the contents of the
first information report, it appears that the
complainant alleged that after the marriage, these
applicants and her husband were demanding Rs.5 lakhs
for the purpose of employment of one Yogesh Bhagwan

¶31

Salunkhe. The parents of the complainant were unable
to pay such huge amount. It is further alleged that

¶32

the applicant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, all were abusing
the respondent No. 2 on telephone. From the contents
of the first information report, it appears that there
are specific allegation against husband, applicant

¶33

No.7-mother-in-law and against applicant No. 4.
However, it appears from the record that the applicant

¶34

No. 4 is resident of Shirpur in Dhule District. The

¶35

applicant Nos. 1 to 6 are not residing at Devpur i.e.

¶36

matrimonial house of the complainant. The applicant

¶37

Nos. 1 to 6 are residing in different places i.e. the

¶38

3/5

¶39

4 CrAppln.475.18.odt

¶40

applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are residing in Surat in Gujarat
State, applicant No. 3 is residing in Malegaon Taluka,
applicant No. 4 is residing at Shirpur, Applicant No. 5
is residing at Nandurbar and applicant No. 6 is
residing in Malegaon Taluka. Therefore, it is

¶41

impossible for them to come together and that to only
for the purpose of giving ill-treatment to the
complainant.

¶42

3.On going through the contents of the first
information report and other papers, it appears that
the allegation against the present applicants Nos. 1 to
6 are vague and in general. No specific act of the
ill-treatment given by each of the applicant Nos. 1 to
6 have not been quoted. There is Omnibus statement
against the applicant Nos. 1 to 6 about the ill-
treatment. So even the contents of the first

¶43

information report are taken to be true then also the
ingredient of Section 498-A are not established.

¶44

4.In view of the above, continuation of the

¶45

criminal proceeding against the applicant Nos. 1 to 6
is nothing but an abuse of process. Now a days there

¶46

is growing tendency to drag the relatives of the

¶47

husband in the criminal case that to without specific

¶48

4/5

¶49

5 CrAppln.475.18.odt

¶50

allegation against them. In such circumstances, such
tendency has to be curbed. Therefore, the first
information report registered against the applicant

¶51

Nos. 1 to 6 needs to be quashed and set aside.

¶52

ORDER

¶53

1. The application of the applicant Nos. 1 to 6 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B);

¶54

2. The application of the applicant No. 7 stands dismissed;

¶55

3. Rule is made partly allowed to the extent of applicant Nos. 1 to 6.

¶56

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

¶57

habeeb

¶58

5/5

Savita W/O. Pintu Salunke and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savita W/O. Pintu Salunke 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

Tulshiram Darmaji Ubale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shantabai Balasaheb Kshetre and Ohters Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Maya D/O. Bansi Gaisamudre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Imran S/O. Abdul Karim Tamboli and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sushantbabu Gopalkisan Maganti and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dr Sadatkhan Yaqubali Khan Vs the State of Maharahtra and Anr.