Dismissed¶¶29

Mahesh Babasaheb Sonawane and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC1 Jul 2025APPLN/423/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

2025:BHC-AUG:17006-DB; Criminal Application No.423 of 2023; quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; R.C.C. No.304 of 2022, JMFC Newasa; Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC; Sonai Police Station; earlier Criminal Application No.2901 of 2022 rejected 27.09.2022; charge-sheet filed 30.06.2022; second marriage during subsisting marriage; mental cruelty under Section 498-A IPC; Grampanchayat birth information, St. Ann's Hospital, Ghodegaon; Hindu Marriage Petition No.71 of 2020 under Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements; Coram Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi & Sanjay A. Deshmukh, JJ.; decided 01.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

The Court declined to exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding this not a fit case for quashment, and rejected the application. ¶¶29

Mahesh Babasaheb Sonawane and Others Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in R.C.C. No.304 of 2022 against the applicants ought to be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶¶15

Court's answer

The Court declined to exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding this not a fit case for quashment, and rejected the application.

¶¶29

Ratio / Principle

The allegations in the F.I.R. were already considered in this Court's speaking order dated 27.09.2022 rejecting Criminal Application No.2901 of 2022, and the contents of the F.I.R. remain the same.

¶¶25

Key takeaways

Prima facie, where the marriage with respondent No.2/informant subsists, a second lady giving birth to the child of Applicant No.1 would amount to mental cruelty as contemplated under Section 498-A IPC.ratio¶¶28
Whether the other applicants had knowledge of the presence of another lady in the house and of the birth of Applicant No.1's child is a matter of fact to be gone into by the trial court; the Court observed that, being from the same village, it is hard to believe the other applicants were unaware.obiter¶¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Application No.423 of 2023 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by eleven applicants — the husband (Applicant No.1), his paternal uncles and their wives (Nos.4–9), and the husband's sister with her husband (Nos.10–11) — seeking quashment of proceedings in R.C.C. No.304 of 2022 before the JMFC, Newasa, for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, rejected. An earlier application (Cri.A. No.2901 of 2022) for quashing the FIR was rejected on 27.09.2022 by a speaking order on the ground that evidence was yet to be collected; the charge-sheet was thereafter filed on 30.06.2022. Per Court: prima facie, a second lady giving birth to Applicant No.1's child while his marriage with the informant subsists would amount to mental cruelty under Section 498-A IPC; whether the other applicants, residing in the same village, had knowledge thereof is a matter of fact for trial. The investigation was noted as deficient — the Police Head Constable did not visit the applicants' village, and Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements were recorded from witnesses of different villages.

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:17006-DB

¶2

¶3

criappln-423-2023

¶4

IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

17 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 423 OF 2023

¶6

Mahesh Babasaheb Sonawane, Age : 32 Years, Occu. : Agri./Business, R/o. Godegaon, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. Babasaheb Sheshrao Sonawane, Age : 58 Years, Occu. : Agri., R/o. Godegaon, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3. Pushpa Babasaheb Sonawane, Age : 55 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o. Godegaon, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. 4. Ashok Sheshrao Sonawane, Age : 56 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o. Godegaon, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. 5. Dilip Sheshrao Sonawane, Age : 48 Years, Occu. : Agri., R/o. Godegaon, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. 6. Sampat Sheshrao Sonawane, Age : 45 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o. Godegaon, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. 7. Renuka Ashok Sonawane, Age : 52 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o. Godegaon, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶7

¶8

criappln-423-2023

¶9

8.	Lilabai Dilip Sonawane, Age : 46 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o. Godegaon, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar.
9.	Manisha Sampat Sonawane, Age : 43 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o. Godegaon, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar.
10.	Sainath Gopinath Hulhule, Age : 39 Years, Occu. : Professional, R/o. Godegaon, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar.
11.	Kaveri Sainath Hulhule, Age : 30 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o. Godegaon, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar.	…. Applicants
	VERSUS
1.	The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station Sonai, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar.
2.	Jyoti Mahesh Sonawane, Age : 24 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o. Khedale Kajali, Tq. Newasa,
	Dist. Ahmednagar.	…. Respondents

¶10

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Manoj A. Dond APP for Respondent No.1-State : Mrs. P.R. Bharaswadkar Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Adinath B. Jagtap

¶11

¶12

criappln-423-2023

¶13

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. Dated : 01^st July 2025

¶14

PER COURT :-

¶15

The present application has been filed for quashment of the proceedings in R.C.C. No.304 of 2022, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Newasa, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the I.P.C.”).

¶16

Heard learned Advocate for both sides as well as learned APP for the State. Perused the affidavit-in-reply and the documents filed by respondent No.2/informant.

¶17

Learned Advocate appearing for the applicants submits that, unnecessary, sweeping allegations have been made by respondent No.2/informant against all the family members. Applicant Nos.4, 5 and 6 are the paternal uncles of the husband of the informant and applicant Nos.7, 8 and 9 are the wives of applicant Nos.4, 5 and 6, respectively. Applicant No.11 is the sister of the husband of the informant and applicant No.10 is her husband. All these persons are residing separately and there is absolutely no reason for them to make any kind of demand. The evidence has been

¶18

¶19

criappln-423-2023

¶20

collected is in the form of statements of witnesses, which are copy paste. Though the applicants had approached this Court earlier by filing Criminal Application No.2901 of 2022, at that time, it was only for the quashment of the First Information Report (for short “the F.I.R.”). By judgment and order dated 27.09.2022, this Court rejected the said application on the ground that the evidence is yet to be collected. But, now, the investigation is over and the charge-sheet is filed. Taking into consideration the contents of the F.I.R., it can be stated that exaggerated facts have been disclosed for roping all the family members.

¶21

Learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.2/informant, by relying upon the affidavit-in-reply of the informant, submits that though applicant No.1/husband had issued a notice to her for joining the company of the husband, it was immediately replied. But still applicant No.1 had not taken her for cohabitation. He has filed Hindu Marriage Petition bearing No.71 of 2020, before the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Newasa, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In spite of this position, it appears that he has performed second marriage and a son has been born to him on 28.11.2022. A true copy of the information, which was supplied to the Grampanchayat, has been produced. It shows the name of the mother of the child is different and not the informant.

¶22

¶23

criappln-423-2023

¶24

The subsequent events are also then required to be considered. All the applicants are residing adjacent to each other and collectively carry out the affairs. Therefore, with such ulterior motive, the suppression of the subsequent events has been done. Thus, this is not a fit case where the Court should exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”).

¶25

At the outset, it is to be noted here that when this Court has passed the judgment and order on 27.09.2022 in Criminal Application No.2901 of 2022, the allegations in the F.I.R. were considered and it was the speaking order, thereby that application came to be rejected. The contents of the F.I.R. are now the same. The additional evidence that has been gathered is in the form of statements of witnesses. Of course, the charge-sheet appears to be filed on 30.06.2022 and if we consider the information that was supplied to the Grampanchyat regarding birth of the son of applicant No.1, it can be seen that the place of birth is stated to be St. Ann's Hospital, Ghodegaon, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar i.e. the same place where the applicants are residing. Certainly, on 30.06.2022, the said lady would have been carrying pregnancy of about three to four months and it appears that the Police Head Constable, who had conducted the investigation, had not made efforts to go to the village where the applicants are residing.

¶26

¶27

criappln-423-2023

¶28

The police station is Sonai Police Station. It shows the witnesses, whose statements taken by him under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., are from different villages than Ghodegaon. If he would have gone to the house of the applicants, he would have realized the fact regarding the lady in the house. Now, when the marriage is subsisting with respondent No.2/informant, if a second lady gives birth to the child of applicant No.1, then certainly as per our prima facie opinion, it would amount to mental cruelty as contemplated under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and when they are from the same village, it is hard to believe that the other applicants were not aware about the same. Therefore, it would be a matter of fact which has to be gone into the trial court as to whether the other applicants had the knowledge regarding the presence of another lady in the house and giving birth to the child of applicant No.1.

¶29

We reiterate that we already expressed the opinion in respect of the contents of the F.I.R. in our earlier order and therefore, we do not find this to be a fit case where we should exercise our powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The application stands rejected.

¶30

[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶31

asd

Mahesh Babasaheb Sonawane and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Babasaheb Sonawane and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dnyaneshwar Suryakant Panchal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shivaji S/O. Narayan Veer Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dnyaneshwar Vishnu Surywanshi and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Humera Jabeen W/O. Jalil Ahmed Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Aksahy Navnath Khatavkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vinodsingh Amarjeet Singh Gyani and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another