Umesh Dhanraj Patil (Bhosale) and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

1 The State of Maharashtra Through the Investigating Officer, Police Station, Dondaicha, Dist. Dhule. 2 Anjali Umesh Bhosale Patil, Age 24 yrs., Occ. Household, R/o C/o Mohan Sahebrao Deware, At post Karle, Tq. Dondaicha, Dist. Dhule.

¶11

… Respondents

¶12

2 30_Cri.Appln_1225_2023

¶13

Mr. D.A. Naik, Advocate for applicants

¶14

Mr. A.D. Wange, APP for respondent No.1

¶15

Mr. A.R. Syed, Advocate (appointed through Legal Aid) for respondent No.2

¶16

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 14^th JANUARY, 2025

¶17

ORDER : ( PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )

¶18

1 Present application has been filed initially for quashing First Information Report vide Crime No.18/2023 dated 25.01.2023 registered with Police Station, Dondaicha, Dist. Dhule and later on by way of amendment for quashing charge sheet No.29/2023 i.e. proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.54/2023 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dondaicha, Dist. Dhule, for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶19

2 Heard learned Advocate Mr. D.A. Naik for applicants, learned APP Mr. A.D. Wange for respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Mr. A.R. Syed for respondent No.2. In order to cut short, it can be said that they have argued in support of their respective contentions.

¶20

3 30_Cri.Appln_1225_2023

¶21

3 What is not in dispute is that respondent No.2 got married to applicant No.1 on 19.01.2021. Applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 were previously married and had got divorced from their respective spouses, thereby it was the second marriage for applicant No.1 as well as respondent No.2.

¶22

4 After disinclination is shown to grant any relief to applicant Nos.1 and 5, learned Advocate for applicants, upon instructions, seeks withdrawal of the application as against applicant Nos.1 and 5. It was in view of the specific role attributed to applicant Nos.1 and 5 i.e. husband and sister-in-law in the First Information Report as well as in the statements of witnesses.

¶23

5 Applicant No.2 is mother-in-law, applicant No.3 is father-in-law and applicant No.4 is co-sister (wife of brother-in-law) of respondent No.2. Perusal of First Information Report would show that applicant No.1 – husband was allegedly assaulting the informant under the influence of liquor without any reason and then when she had asked about the reason for the assault, he started saying that she should explain why her first husband has left her. Then she says that mother-in-law joined husband in demanding the amount from her parents which she had received at the time of first marriage

¶24

4

¶25

30_Cri.Appln_1225_2023

¶26

and then the husband was harassing her for other reasons. She then says that once when she was pregnant, she was admitted by applicant No.1, at that time, applicant Nos.2 to 4 were present and at that time applicant No.1 started raising objection over her chastity. When she replied, it is stated that applicant Nos.1 to 4 got angry, took her shteedhan and confined her in one room and then on 03.02.2022 when there was marriage of her brother, her brother and father had come to invite applicant Nos.1 to 4, at that time, all of them demanded amount of Rs.8,00,000/- for purchase of tractor. There were heat exchanges of words. She then states that while dancing in the function of marriage of her brother she fell down on her stomach when she was pregnant and afterwards when she fell ill, she was admitted to hospital and was required to undergo abortion. She says that accused Nos.2 to 4 had not come to make inquiry about her health. She also states that accused No.4 had assaulted her with broom. Applicant No.2 had kicked her.

¶27

6 It is to be noted that a very lengthy First Information Report has been given and trying to give specific role to everyone, but it is to be noted that First Information Report is the result of order of application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Why the co-sister would in any manner harass her, is a question. So also, as regards mother-in-law the allegations are off and on and it appears that those allegations have been

¶28

5

¶29

30_Cri.Appln_1225_2023

¶30

made with some purpose. There is absolutely no role attributed to applicant No.3 – father-in-law. The statements in respect of the fact that when her father and brother had come to give invitation card and alleged demand that was made to them also has not been responded properly by the father. Neither he has gone to Police Station to lodge the report nor he had taken any steps for arranging a meeting with respectable persons for redressal of the complaint of his daughter. Therefore, the exaggeration can be seen in respect of allegations against respondent Nos.2 to 4. Therefore, case is made out for exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in their favour. Hence, following order.

¶31

ORDER

¶32

i) Criminal Application stands partly allowed.

¶33

ii) Criminal Application stands disposed of as withdrawn, after disinclination, as against applicant Nos.1) Umesh Dhanraj Patil (Bhosale) and 5) Pratibha w/o Madhusudan Patil .

¶34

iii) Criminal Application stands allowed as against applicant Nos.2) Sunandabai w/o Dhanraj Patil (Bhosale) , 3) Dhanraj Himmatrao Patil (Bhosale) and 4) Gayatri w/o Prakash Patil (Bhosale) .

¶35

6 30_Cri.Appln_1225_2023

¶36

iv) Charge Sheet No.29/2023 i.e. proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.54/2023 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dondaicha, Dist. Dhule arising out of First Information Report vide Crime No.18/2023 dated 25.01.2023 registered with Police Station, Dondaicha, Dist. Dhule, for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 stands quashed and set aside as against applicant Nos.2 to 4.

¶37

( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )

¶38

agd

Umesh Dhanraj Patil (Bhosale) and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Dhanraj Patil (Bhosale) and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudam Mahada Walale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Narendra Jagnnath Yerawar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Santosh Totarm Jamdhade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Vilas Ramdas Wakode Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sunita Sanjay Brahmane Vs the Child Marriage Prohibition Officer Panchayat Samiti Rahta

Asif Khan S O Haji Ismail Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Public Works Department Mantralaya Mumbai