When prosecution U/S 498A of IPC against relative of husband is liable to be quashed?

Whether prosecution of relatives of husband U/S 498A of IPC  who are not residing with husband and against whom there are no specific allegation can be quashed?
So far as Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are concerned they
are residing separately at Shrigonda. Petitioner No.3 is in
service. Petitioner No.4 resides with Petitioner No.3 at
Shrigonda. The allegations against these two petitioners
are vague and general in nature. F.I.R. on its face does not
constitute any offence against Petitioner Nos.3 and 4. No
specific role is attributed to each of them. To prevent
abuse of process of law we find that discretion needs to be
exercised in respect to Petitioner Nos.3 and 4.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.: 1001 OF 2014
Dnyanoba S/o Bhimrao Ganapure, V The State of Maharashtra.

CORAM:- T. V. NALAWADE &
SMT. I. K. JAIN, JJ.
DATED:- 6th APRIL, 2015.
Citation;2015 ALLMR(CRI)3435


2. Learned A.P.P. is also heard.
3. The petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings in R.C.C.
No.249 of 2013 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Nilanga arising out of Crime No.55 of 2013
registered at Police Station Aurad Shahajani, Taluka Nilanga
on the report of Respondent No.2 Manisha for the offences

punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with
34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. We have heard the parties. Perused police papers.
5. It can be seen from F.I.R. that Respondent No.2 was
married to Laxman, son of Petitioner No.1 on 24th June,
2012 as per Hindu Customary Rites. In the marriage father
of Respondent No.2 had given Rs.4,50,000/- and 2-1/2
Tolas gold. He incurred expenses of more than Rs.10 Lacs
in the said marriage.
6. According to Respondent No.2 she was treated well
initially for 5-6 months. Thereafter, her husband, in-laws
and other relatives started illtreating her on demand of
remaining amount of dowry. They used to ask Respondent
No.2 that her father agreed to give Rs.6 Lacs in marriage
but less dowry was given and thereby they were insulted.
Respondent No.2 tolerated the harassment with a hope
that her husband and others in family would improve their
behaviour.
7. On 6th May, 2013 when Respondent No.2 was at
village Chichondi in her matrimonial house she was blamed
for theft of gold Ganthan. That time her husband and
others abused her. She was also beaten. She informed

about the incident to her parents.
8. On 10th May, 2013 her father came to village
Chichondi. The husband of Respondent No.2 abused her
father in filthy language, insulted him and asked him to
take away Respondent No.2. Thereafter, she came to Latur
along with her father. With ill intention her husband issued
a legal notice to her which was promptly replied on 12th
June, 2013. He filed divorce proceeding bearing No.174 of
2013 in Latur Court. Then father of Respondent No.2 along
with the relatives approached husband and family
members of husband of Respondent No.2 on 15th
November, 2013 and requested them to allow complainant
to resume company of her husband. That time also they
insisted to fulfill demand of Rs.1,50,000/- and for divorce.
They abused and threatened to kill the complainant and
her father. Having no alternative Respondent No.2 came
back to Latur and reported the matter to police.
9. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are father-in-law and motherin-law
of complainant. Petitioner No.3 is brother-in-law,
Petitioner No.4 is wife of Petitioner No.3 and Petitioner No.5
is sister-in-law of Manisha. It can be seen from F.I.R. that
there are specific allegations of harassment and cruelty on

demand of remaining amount of dowry against Petitioner
Nos.1, 2 and 5. Instances have been quoted in F.I.R.
accordingly. Therefore, we do not find it a fit case to
exercise discretion in respect to Petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 5.
10. So far as Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are concerned they
are residing separately at Shrigonda. Petitioner No.3 is in
service. Petitioner No.4 resides with Petitioner No.3 at
Shrigonda. The allegations against these two petitioners
are vague and general in nature. F.I.R. on its face does not
constitute any offence against Petitioner Nos.3 and 4. No
specific role is attributed to each of them. To prevent
abuse of process of law we find that discretion needs to be
exercised in respect to Petitioner Nos.3 and 4.
11. In the result, Criminal Writ Petition No.1001 of 2014 is
partly allowed to the extent of Petitioner No.3 Shriram
Dnyanoba Ganapure and Respondent No.4 Shubhangi
Shriram Ganapure.
12. Proceeding in R.C.C. No.249 of 2013 pending before
learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nilanga arising out
of Crime No.55 of 2013, registered at Aurad Shahajani
Police Station, Taluka Nilanga on the report of Respondent
No.2 Manisha for the offences punishable under sections

498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code
is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of Petitioner
No.3 Shriram Ganapure and Petitioner No.4 Shubhangi
Ganapure.
13. Criminal Writ Petition in respect of Petitioner Nos.1, 2
and 5 stands dismissed.
14. Rule is made partly absolute in aforesaid terms.
[SMT. I. K. JAIN, J.] [T. V. NALAWADE, J.]
Dated:06/03/2015.

Print Page