SAGAR BHASKAR RAUT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present application is preferred by the applicants who are the husband and the relatives of the husband for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with Crime No. 136/2025 registered under Sec. 498-A read with Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code registered with Frejarpura, police Station District Amravati.

(2.) As per the contention of the non-applicant no. 2 her marriage was performed with the applicant no. 1 on 26/4/2019. In the marriage her father has incurred the expenses and also gifted golden ornaments. As per the recitals of the First Information Report her father has incurred the expenses to the tune of Rs.22,50,000.00. It is alleged by her that after marriage the applicant no. 1 has refused to have physical relationship with her he has also taken on her on a trourist visa at Australia. Wherein also she was repeatedly humiliated insulted by saying that, she is uneducated and he was having the relationship with a girl residing at Australia. It is further alleged that on various occasions she was insulted, humiliated by the applicant no. 1 and she was ill-treated physically as well as mentally also by abusing her. She was also ill-treated as she could conceive and therefore she constrained to return to her parents house. On the basis of the said report police have registered the crime against the applicant no. 1 and the other applicants.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant who submitted that the non-applicant no. 2 and the applicant no. 1 has arrived at a settlement and in view of the settlement they decided to obtain the decree of the divorce therefore they preferred an application before the Family Court Amravati on 26/1/2023 as both the parties have not appeared before the Court, therefore, the petition was dismissed on 4/1/2021. Subsequent to the dismissal of the petition this First Information Report came to be lodged. He submitted that the entire allegations are baseless and vague in nature and not stating any specific instances as to the ill- treatment. He submitted that as the non-applicant no. 2 was not willing to cohabit with the applicant no. 1 and therefore this FIR came to be lodged after the divorce petition is dismissed he submitted that as far as the other applicants are concerned especially the in-laws who were residing in India at Pune. The applicant no. 3 who is the brother of the applicant no. 1, applicant no. 4, 5 and 6 are the sisters who already married and residing at their matrimonial house, applicant no. 7 is the husband's brother's brother-in-law and the applicant no. 8. is the husband's brothers friend who are not at all concerned regarding the domestic relationship with the non-applicant no. 2. Therefore, question of ill- treatment at their hands doesn't arise.