Partly allowed

Ashok Malappa Damewale and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC17 Apr 2023APPLN/424/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Parents-in-law and relatives sought quashing of an FIR under the IPC alleging cruelty against their daughter-in-law. The court quashed proceedings against two applicants found to have no specific role, distinguishing them from the main applicants whose application was withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Crime No.183 of 2022 is quashed and set aside to the extent of applicants number 3 and 4; application to the extent of applicants 1 and 2 is dismissed as withdrawn.

Ashok Malappa Damewale and Others Vs the State of… — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

{1} CRI APPLN 424 OF 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

109 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.424 OF 2023

¶4

Ashok s/o. Malappa Damewale

¶5

Anita w/o. Ashok Damewale

¶6

Anand s/o. Ashok Damewale

¶7

Shevata w/o. Laxman Gangane ..Applicants

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

The State of Maharashtra

¶10

Seema w/o. Amit Damewale ..Respondents

¶11

Advocate for Applicants : Mr.Vikrant S. Valse APP for Respondent No.1 : Mr.G.O.Wattamwar Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Ms.Manjushri Shendge - Narwade (appointed through Legal Aid)

¶12

...

¶13

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.

¶14

DATE : 17 April 2023

¶15

PER COURT :-

¶16

. The parents-in-law, brother-in-law and distant cousin mother-in-law of respondent no.2 are seeking quashment of Crime No.183 of 2022 registered with Dindrud Police Station, Tq.Majalgaon, Dist.Beed, for the ofence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and subsequent charge-sheet.

¶17

{2} CRI APPLN 424 OF 2023

¶18

2. We have heard both the sides.

¶19

Respondent no.2 lodged the FIR on 30-09-2022 inter alia alleging that for the frst year of the marriage, she was maintained properly during which time she delivered a boy. However, thereafter, all the applicants and husband started insisting her to pay remainder of dowry and on that count she was subjected to cruelty. She was taunted and abused. On 29-09-2022 she was driven out after an assault.

¶20

When we express our disinclination to grant any relief to applicant nos.1 and 2, learned Advocate for the applicants, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the application to their extent.

¶21

So far as applicant nos.3 and 4 are concerned, the only allegation in the FIR and statements of the witnesses including that of the parents of respondent no.2, attributable to them are about having exhorted the husband to subject respondent no.2 to ill-treatment. Applicant no.4 is not even residing at the matrimonial home. Considering the allegations, no specifc and exclusive role is attributable to either of applicant nos.3 or 4. In our considered view, the case to the extent of applicant nos.3

¶22

{3} CRI APPLN 424 OF 2023

¶23

and 4 is squarely covered by the observations of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and others; (2022) 6 SCC 599 and falls in the categories of the situations described in the matter of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others; AIR 1992 SC 604.

¶24

It would be abuse of process of the Court if applicant nos.3 and 4 are allowed to be prosecuted with the quality of the allegations and the material collected, rather the lack of it, which do not make out the ingredients for the ofences for which they have been implicated. Allowing the trial to proceed against them would be exercise in futility.

¶25

The application is partly allowed. Crime No.183 of 2022 registered with Dindrud Police Station, Tq.Majalgaon, Dist.Beed, for the ofence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 reach with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequent charge-sheet, to the extent of applicant nos.3 and 4, are quashed and set aside.

¶26

Application to the extent of applicant nos.1 and 2 is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶27

{4} CRI APPLN 424 OF 2023

¶28

Fees of the learned Advocate appointed to represent respondent no.2 is quantifed at Rs.3,000/- (Rs. Three thousand only).

¶29

( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ) ( MANGESH S. PATIL ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶30

SPT

Ashok Malappa Damewale and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Malappa Damewale 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

Chandu @ Dnyaneshwar S/O. Yuvraj Folane @ Kolane and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nirmala Digambar Patil Vs Digambar Kadu Patil and Another

Pathan Riyaz Khan Shaukat Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Gaurav Sahebrao Dhumal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Padminibai Wd/O. Ratan Telang and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Raju (Rajebhau) Mahadu Dahiphale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another