(1)

920-appln-1807-2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1807 OF 2022

PRATIBHA SANJAY YELURE AND ANOTHER

..APPLICANTS

VERSUS

MEERA W/O. KUNAL KOTE AND OTHERS

..RESPONDENTS

…

Mr. N. J. Patil, Advocate for the Applicants.

Mr. A. P. Yenegure, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1

and 2.

…

CORAM : SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.

DATED : 14^th SEPTEMBER, 2022.

PER COURT:-

1.

Heard Mr. N. J. Patil, learned counsel for

the applicants and Mr. A. P. Yenegure, learned

counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 (appointed).

2.

Mr. N. J. Patil, learned counsel for the

applicants made it clear that respondent nos.3 to 6

are formal party to this application and no relief

is sought against them. Respondent nos.1 and 2 are

only contesting parties.

3.

It is necessary to have a glance on few

facts which would be relevant and important to

decide this application for quashing of the

proceedings initiated by respondent no.1 under the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,

2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘D.V. Act, 2005’

for the sake of convenience).

4.

The marriage between respondent no.1 and

respondent no.3 was solemnized on 25.01.2015. Out

of wedlock they blessed with one baby boy. It is

(2)

920-appln-1807-2022

the contention of respondent no.1 that soon after

the marriage she was subjected to harassment and

cruelty at the hands of her husband, in-laws and

distant relatives. She was subjected to domestic

violence. She was even subjected to physical

violence when she was residing in the matrimonial

home. She continued her cohabitation under hope

that everything would be alright after some passage

of time, but unfortunately nothing happened

positively. The situation became worst. She

constrained to file complaint under the D.V. Act,

2005 before JMFC, Renapur and sought various

reliefs against her husband, in-laws and other

relatives.

5.

Applicant nos.1 and 2 herein are stated to

be married sisters of father-in-law of respondent

no.1-Meera. It is not in dispute that they are

permanent resident of Pune. Both of them are

living with their family.

6.

Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the

applicants submitted that present applicants are

married sisters of father-in-law of respondent

no.1. They have no role to play in the day to day

family affairs of respondent no.1 and her husband.

They are residing with their families at Pune.

Hardly they had any occasion to visit the

matrimonial home of respondent no.1 only on certain

occasions. They have been unnecessarily roped in a

proceeding under the D.V. Act, 2005. He submitted

that allegations levelled against the applicants in

(3)

920-appln-1807-2022

the complaint under the D.V. Act, 2005 are vague

and absurd. The provisions of D.V. Act, 2005 do

not attract against them. The present applicants

were also roped in an offences punishable under

Section 498-A, 323, 294 and 506 r/w. Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code. The Division Bench of this

Court was pleased to quash the FIR vide Crime

No.163/2021 as well as charge-sheet and the

proceeding on the file of learned JMFC in respect

of these applicants. He submitted that the

proceedings filed by respondent no.1 under the D.V.

Act, 2005 is liable to be quashed and set aside.

7.

Per contra, Mr. A. P. Yenegure, learned

counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 supported the

allegations made in the complaint. He invited my

attention to the relevant paragraphs of the

complaint and submitted that there are specific

allegations against present applicants. Both of

them alleged to have practiced domestic violence

against respondent no.1 alongwith husband and

father-in-law of respondent no.1. In view of

specific allegations attributed against both the

applicants, it is not a fit case to quash the

proceedings against the applicants. Let them face

the prosecution according to provisions of law.

8.

I have considered the submissions of

learned counsel for both the sides. I have also

gone through al