Allowed

Shailesh Jagannath Pankhade and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC16 Oct 2023APPLN/1237/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application seeking quashment of F.I.R. and proceedings under Sections 498-A and other IPC provisions, the High Court allowed the application regarding three appellants. The court held that allegations were motivated to implicate in-laws and supported the withdrawal of the application regarding the fourth appellant.

What did the court decide?

Criminal application allowed; F.I.R. and proceedings quashed against Applicants Nos. 2 to 4 on the ground of motivated allegations and misuse of process.

Shailesh Jagannath Pankhade and Others Vs the State… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

6-appln-1237-2023.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1237 OF 2023

¶4

1. SHAILESH JAGANNATH PANKHADE

¶5

2. KADUBAI JAGANNATH PANKHADE

¶6

3. MUKTA SANTOSH PANKHADE

¶7

4. SANTOSH JAGANNATH PANKHADE

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶10

...

¶11

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. N. S. Shah h/f
Mr. N. D. Batule

¶12

Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. S. W. Munde

¶13

...

¶14

CORAM:R.M. JOSHI, J

¶15

DATE:OCTOBER 16, 2023

¶16

PER COURT :

¶17

1.With consent of learned Counsel appearing for
Applicant and learned APP for Respondent No. 1 – State,
heard finally. None appeared for Respondent No. 2.

¶18

2.At the outset, learned Counsel for the
Applicants, on instructions, submits that he is not
pressing Application against Applicant No. 1.

¶19

3.In view of this, application is dismissed as
withdrawn against Applicant No. 1.

¶20

4.Respondent No. 2 has filed private complaint
before Magistrate making allegations against Applicants

¶21

Page 1 of 5

¶22

6-appln-1237-2023.odt

¶23

for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323,

¶24

504, 506 of Indian Penal Code. According to her, her
marriage was performed with Applicant No. 1 on
24.05.2020 and since then she started cohabitation at
her matrimonial home. She used to stay along with
husband and mother-in-law on the upper floor of the
premises whereas Applicant Nos. 3 and 4 were staying on
ground floor. It is alleged that all Applicants used to
cause harassment to her and they used to demand Rs. 1
lacs for purchase of furniture. On the basis of these
allegations, process came to be issued against
Applicants herein.

¶25

5.Learned Counsel for the Applicants submits
that in fact Applicant No. 1 had issued notice dated
06.12.2021 to Respondent No. 2 and which was replied by
her by replies dated 27.12.2021 & 29.12.2021. By
drawing attention of the Court to the averments in the
said reply it is submitted that no allegation of demand
of any dowry was made by Respondent No. 2 against these
Applicants. It is, therefore, submitted that the
Applicants sought to be falsely implicated in this
crime. It is submitted that though there is allegation

¶26

Page 2 of 5

¶27

6-appln-1237-2023.odt

¶28

in the complaint that Applicant Nos. 3 and 4 were
residing in the same premises, however, considering the
Covid-19 pandemic period and restrictions on the
movements of people and their psyche of not to come
into contact with others, makes it improbable that they
would go to premises of Respondent to cause harassment
to her.

¶29

6.Respondent No. 2 failed to appear before this
Court in spite of service of notice which indicates
that she is not interested in opposing the application.

¶30

7.Learned APP after going through the record
submitted that there are specific allegations in the
complaint filed before the Magistrate showing
involvement of all Applicants in this crime. It is
submitted that there is specific allegation of demand
of Rs. 1 lacs for purchase of furniture and for not
meeting the said demand, the Respondent No. 2 was
harassed by the Applicants. It is, therefore, his
contention that this is not a fit case for quashment of
the proceedings.

¶31

8.From the complaint lodged before the learned

¶32

Page 3 of 5

¶33

6-appln-1237-2023.odt

¶34

Magistrateindicatesthatthereare

¶35

differences/disputes between the Respondent No. 2 and
in-laws. Though there are allegations even against
Applicant Nos. 2 to 4 about demanding dowry i.e., Rs. 1
lacs for the purchase of furniture, however, in the
replies issued through Advocate by Respondent No.2
there is no whisper any such demand against any of the
accused. On the contrary, it shows that since there was
grievance made by the husband of the Respondent No. 2
certain specific allegations were made against him.

¶36

9.The Hon’ble the Apex Court in case of

¶37

Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Ors Vs.State of Bihar and

¶38

Ors, (2022) 6 SCC 599has observed as follows:

¶39

“The above-mentioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this court has at numerous
instances expressed concern over the misuse of
section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of
implicating relatives of the husband in
matrimonial disputes, without analysing the
long term ramifications of a trial on the
complainant as well as the accused. It is
further manifest from the said judgments that
false implication by way of general omnibus
allegations made in the course of matrimonial
dispute, if left unchecked would result in
misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this
court by way of its judgments has warned the
courts from proceeding against the relatives

¶40

Page 4 of 5

¶41

6-appln-1237-2023.odt

¶42

and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie
case is made out against them.”

¶43

10.In the instant case, the allegations made

¶44

against Applicants do not constitute offence as there
is material on record to indicate that the allegations
are motivated and made with an intention to rope in-
laws in the criminal proceedings. The judgment of

¶45

Hon’ble Apex Court in case ofState of Haryana & Ors
Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors, AIR 1992 SCC 335, squarely
applies to the present case.

¶46

11.Resultantly, Application is allowed in terms

¶47

of prayer clause ‘B’ qua Applicant Nos. 2 to 4.

¶48

Malani

¶49

Page 5 of 5

Shailesh Jagannath Pankhade and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailesh Jagannath Pankhade and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachin Hanumant Mali and Others Vs Manisha W/O. Sachin Mali

Ganesh Anil Kusumude and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Purushottam Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ratan Seva Pawar Vs Rajiv Gandhi Sahakari Pathsanstha, Branch Kaudgaon through Its Member Shivaji Bhaskar Waman

M/S. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. Aurangaba through Yogesh Krushnarao Naik Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Harish @ Harichandra Baburao Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another