SUPRIYA RAJU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as "the Cr.P.C."), for quashing Regular Criminal Case No.64/2020, arising out of the F.I.R. no.62/2020, registered at Police Station, Markhel, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded, for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (Hereinafter referred to as "the I.P.C."), pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Degloor, Dist.Nanded to the extent of applicant, who has been arrayed therein as accused no.5.

(2.) Heard Mr.Vivek Bhavthankar, the learned Advocate for the applicant, Mr.U.B. Deshmukh, the learned Advocate for respondent no.2-first informant and Mr.K.S. Patil, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

(3.) Mr.Vivek Bhavthankar, the learned Advocate for the applicant, while taking us through the paper book annexed to the application, including copies of the charge-sheet and the F.I.R., strenuously argued that Mrs.Sheetal Vaibhav Dhumale/first informant is the legally wedded wife of accused no.1 - Vaibhav Anandrao Dhumale. Their marriage has been solemnized on 18.02.2018 as per Hindu Rites and Customs prevailing in their community. The applicant is the married sister of accused no.1 - Vaibhav Dhumale and sister-in-law of the first informant. She has been given in marriage at village Gadgi, Tq. & Dist. Bidar. However, she resides at Gokhalenagar, Pune along with her husband Raju @ Rajkumar Biradar. Raju @ Rajkumar Biradar carries business at Pune. Whereas, the first informant Sau. Sheetal used to reside at Markhel, Tq.Degloor, Dist. Nanded. Markhel, Tq. Degloor is far away from Pune, where the applicant resides with her husband. The allegation made against the applicant in the F.I.R. and charge-sheet are very much scanty and vague. No details of mental harassment of Sau.Sheetal by the applicant by asking her to pay the amount demanded for betterment of husband Vaibhav find place either in the F.I.R. or in the statement of any of the witnesses annexed to the charge-sheet. Whatever, allegations of demand of Rs.10,00,000/- and ill-treatment meted out to Sau.Sheetal, for coercing her to fulfill the said demand, are made against other accused, who are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of Sau.Sheetal. Looking to the facts that the applicant is married woman resides far away from village Markhel along with her husband, the question of her ill-treating Sau.Sheetal for any reason does not arise. The applicant has been involved in the case only to harass her, as she is a sister of accused nos.1 and 4 and the daughter of accused nos.2 and 3. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, absolutely there is no possibility of conviction of the applicant in criminal case. Thus, no fruitful purpose would be served by compelling her to face the trial, which ultimately will result in her acquittal. According to Mr.Vivek Bhavthankar, learned Advocate, this is a fit case, wherein the impugned F.I.R. and charge-sheet can be quashed to the extent of applicant by invoking powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.