Partly allowed

Gangabai Dnyanoba Shiral and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC23 Mar 2023APPLN/2367/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal application sought quashing of proceedings under Sections 498AA, 323, 504 IPC regarding matrimonial cruelty. The High Court dismissed the plea for the mother-in-law upon withdrawal but partially allowed the application, quashing the case against other relatives due to vague allegations existing only in common hostility scenarios.

What did the court decide?

Quashment of Crime No. 262/2021 and charge-sheet against applicant Nos. 2 to 5; application regarding applicant No. 1 dismissed as withdrawn.

Gangabai Dnyanoba Shiral and Others Vs the State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

{1} CRI APPLN 2367 OF 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

981 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2367 OF 2021

¶4

Gangubai w/o Dnyanoba Shiral

¶5

Murlidhar s/o Dnyanoba Shiral

¶6

Mira w/o Murlidhar Shiral

¶7

Sharad s/o Murlidhar Shiral

¶8

Mira w/o Dattatray Suryawanshi ..Applicants (Accused No.2 to 6)

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

. The State of Maharashtra and Another ..Respondents

¶11

Advocate for Applicants : Mr.Janakwade Shivsamb N. APP for Respondent No.1 : Mr.M.M.Nerlikar

¶12

Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr.Dudhate Shivaji Namdevrao

¶13

...

¶14

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.

¶15

DATE : 23 March 2023

¶16

ORDER ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :-

¶17

The applicants are seeking quashment of Crime No.262 of 2021 registered with Selu Police Station, Dist.Parbhani for the offence punishable under Sections 498AA, 323, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the consequent chargeAsheet.

¶18

We have heard both the sides and perused the papers.

¶19

When we express our disinclination to grant any relief to applicant No.1, who happens to be motherAinAlaw of respondent

¶20

{2} CRI APPLN 2367 OF 2021

¶21

No.2, her learned Advocate seeks leave to withdraw application to her extent. Leave granted.

¶22

The FIR as also the statements of the parents and other relatives of respondent No.2 from parental side mention about the marriage having been solemnized on 15A06A2019. She had apparently cohabited in the matrimonial home for a period of about one and half year.

¶23

The allegations in the FIR and the statements of the witnesses are apparently general in nature as regards the role attributed to the other relatives other than husband and motherA inAlaw. Though they all have been named, we do not fnd any reference to their specifc role in the FIR and in the statements of the witnesses and they have been only named with husband and motherAinAlaw. There are no specifc and precise allegations which can be attributable to any of these applicants so that we can permit their prosecution.

¶24

The FIR mentions that in the morning of Sakrant of the year 2020, applicant No.3, who happens to be wife of the applicant No.2 and applicant No.2, who is brother of the husband are stated to have jointly with motherAinAlaw started abusing her. She was beaten by the motherAinAlaw and thereafter even the

¶25

{3} CRI APPLN 2367 OF 2021

¶26

husband gave her beating. The further allegations as regard to these other applicants are concerned, it is being vaguely alleged that they jointly with husband and motherAinAlaw abused and subjected her to cruelty. She also alleges about she being taunted and that there was demand of money. Again same is the case in the case of incident dated 16A12A2020 wherein all the applicants and the husband allegedly assaulted her.

¶27

Same is the version of parents of respondent no.2 in their statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If at all respondent No.2 was subjected to persistent physical and mental harassment, when she was residing in the parental home almost for one and half year, it was expected that some particulars would come forth particularly attributing overt act to each of the relations who have been sought to be roped in. The role attributable to these other applicants is in respect of the incidents wherein even the husband and the motherAinAlaw had participated.

¶28

In the absence of any concrete allegations and material revealing involvement of the applicants in subjecting respondent No.2 to cruelty, we need to be on guard in view of the usual tendency of roping in all the relatives of husband as noticed by the Supreme Court in the matters of Preeti Gupta and

¶29

{4} CRI APPLN 2367 OF 2021

¶30

another Vs. State of Jharkhand and another AIR 2010 SC

¶31

3363 , Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of U.P.; 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1251 and latest in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and others; (2022) 6 SCC 599.

¶32

It would be sheer abuse of process of Court if based on such quality of allegations and the material collected by the Investigating Ofcer, applicant Nos.2 to 5 are made to face the prosecution, which according to us in all probability would be an exercise in futility.

¶33

The application is partly allowed. The Crime No.262 of 2021 registered with Selu Police Station, Dist.Parbhani for the offence punishable under Sections 498AA, 323, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the consequent chargeAsheet are quashed and set aside, to the extent of applicant Nos.2 to 5.

¶34

Application to the extent of applicant No.1 is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶35

SPT

Gangabai Dnyanoba Shiral and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangabai Dnyanoba Shiral 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

Deepak Hukumchand Duggad and Another Vs Shri Sthanakwasi Jain Sangh Shrirampur through President and Others

Jamil Abbass Sayyed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Suraj Narayanrao Kanchi and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Matoshri Jijamay Sevabhavi Sanstha through Its President and Members Rahul Govardhan Nagargoje Vs Ravindra Chavan Cabinet Minister Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection

Vasudeo Mahadeo Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shivaji Tulshiram Jinkalwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another