498a quashed against relatives by bombay high court…

Bombay High Court
Uddhav S/O. Laxman Kalaskar And … vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 6 August, 2018
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
                                        1                              CrAppln 1337 18J

                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1337 OF 2018

1)         Uddhav s/o Laxman Kalaskar,
           Age 28 years, Occ. Student,
           R/o. Chincholi, Tq. Paithan,
           Dist. Aurangabad. 

2)        Laxman s/o Asaram Kalaskar,
          Age 50 years, Occ. Labourer,
          R/o. As above.

3)        Prayagbai w/o Laxman Kalaskar,
          Age 45 years, Occ. Household,
          R/o. As above.

4)        Bharat s/o Laxman Kalaskar,
          Age 22 years, Occ. Student,
          R/o. As above. 

5)        Meerabai wo Kallyan Tarmale,
          Age 35 years, Occ. Household,
          R/o. Bokud Jalgaon, Tq. Paithan,
          Dist. Aurangabad.                               ... Applicants
                                                       (Original  accused )

1.        The State of Maharashtra.     

2.        Shakuntala w/o Uddhav Kalaskar,
          Age 25 years, Occ. Household, 
          R/o. Chincholi, Tq. Paithan,
          A/p residing at Sonvihir, Tq. Shevgaon,
          Dist. Ahmednagar.                              ... Respondents.
                                                (respondent No. 2 is original 


     ::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2018                   ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 01:48:54 :::
                                              2                             CrAppln 1337 18J

                  Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Tribhuwan Nitin T.
                 APP for respondent No. 1/State : Mr. R.V. Dasalkar.
                 Advocate for respondent No. 2 : Mrs. A. N. Ansari.                            

                                      CORAM :        T.V. NALAWADE  &
                                                     K. L. WADANE, JJ.

                                      DATE       :   6th  AUGUST,  2018.


1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, this application is taken up for final hearing.

2. This application is filed by the applicants/original accused under the provisions of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for relief of setting aside and quashing the proceeding bearing R.C.C. No. 77/2015 pending before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Paithan, arising out of first information report Crime No. I-165/2014 registered with Bidkin Police Station, District Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:

(i) The applicant No. 1 (original accused No. 1 ) is the husband of respondent No. 2 (original complainant), applicants No. 2 and 3 are 3 CrAppln 1337 18J father-in-law and mother-in-law of the respondent no. 2, applicant No. 4 is brother of applicant No. 1 and the applicant No. 5 is sister of the applicant No. 5.

(ii) Respondent No. 2/original complainant lodged complaint by alleging that, her marriage performed with applicant No. 1 Udhav prior to eight years back. After the marriage the applicants treated her well for about seven years. During the wedlock she has one daughter namely Divya and also she was pregnant for second time. It is alleged by the complainant that all the applicants demanded Rs. 50,000/- for construction of house and on that count they ill treated her physically and mentally. The complainant has narrated the ill treatment to her brother on phone. At that time her father and other relatives tried to gave understanding to the applicants but they did not pay heed and again started more ill treatment to the complainant and threatened to kill the complainant. With these allegations, offence came to be registered against the applicants for the offences punishable under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Tribhuwan N.T., learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Dasalkar, learned APP for the respondent No.1/State and Mrs. Ansari, learned counsel for respondent 4 CrAppln 1337 18J No. 2. Learned counsel for applicants, on instructions, withdraw the application for applicant No. 1.

5. On perusal of the contents of the first information report it appears that the allegations against the applicants No. 2 to 5 are vague and general in nature. It is alleged against the applicants No. 2 to 5 that they were demanding Rs. 50,000/- for the construction of house. But no specific role or act of each of the applicants has been specifically mentioned in the first information report. It is also to be noted that in the supplementary statement of the complainant which is recorded on 15.10.2014, the complainant made exaggerated statement. In previous statement she has not specifically mentioned the act of each of the applicants. However, in supplementary statement she made allegations against the applicants No. 2 to 5 about ill treatment and abuses by suspecting on her character. Therefore, the contention of the complainant about ill treatment and harassment at the hands of applicants appears to be doubtful.

6. On perusal of the record it also appears that there is dispute between the applicant No. 1 and complainant on the ground of paternity of their child. So prima-facie it appears that to harass the family members, the present complaint is filed. No material particular quoting 5 CrAppln 1337 18J any specific incident of illtreatment or harassment at the hands of applicants No. 2 to 5, so as to attract the ingredients of section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code or other offences as alleged by the complainant. Hence to prevent the abuse of process of law, we find that discretion needs to be exercised in respect of applicants No. 4 to 8. Hence, following order:


1. Application of applicant No. 1 Udhav Laxman Kalaskar, is disposed of as withdrawn.

2. Application of applicants No. 2 to 5 is allowed. Relief is granted in their favour in terms of prayer clause ‘B’.

3. Rule made absolute in those terms.

7. Criminal application is disposed of.

        (K. L. WADANE, J.)                             (T.V.NALAWADE,J.)    


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s