Bombay High Court

Rajjat Darasing Rathod And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 6 December, 2021

Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More

                                    1                    cran1367.2021.odt

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

             62 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1367 OF 2021

          RAJJAT DARASING RATHOD AND OTHERS
                            VERSUS
        THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                ...
      Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Shaikh Tarek Mobin H.
             APP for Respondent 1 : Mr.R D Sanap
         Advocate for Respondent 2 : Mr. H. P. Randhir
                                ...
     CORAM : V.K. JADHAV & SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.

Dated : December 06, 2021 ...

PER COURT :-

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the

applicants for some time.

2. Leave to amend the prayer clause to the extent of

RCC number.

3. The learned counsel for the applicants, on

instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the application of

applicant no.1-Rajjat Darasing Rathod (Husband), 2-

Darasing Madusing Rathod (father-in-law) and 3 - Baby

Darasing Rathod (mother-in-law).

4. Leave granted. Application of applicant nos.1 to 3

are hereby dismissed as withdrawn.

aaa/-

                                      2                  cran1367.2021.odt

     5.      The       applicants/original   accused      are      seeking

quashing of the First Information Report bearing crime

no.27 of 2021 and subsequent charge-sheet vide RCC

No.183 of 2021 for the offences punishable under

sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506, 510 of the Indian Penal

Code.

6. The learned counsel for the applicants submits

that though names of the applicants are mentioned in

the FIR, however, allegations have been made mainly

against the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law,

whose application seeking quashing of the FIR and

proceedings came to be withdrawn today. Learned

counsel submits that the allegations as against the

applicants are concerned, those are general in nature.

So far as the incident dated 25.3.2020 is concerned, it

has merely alleged in the complaint that the present

applicants alongwith other co-accused persons went to

the parents house of the informant and further took son

of the co-accused Rajjat Rathod alongwith them by

making debate with the parents of respondent no.2.

aaa/-

3 cran1367.2021.odt

7. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that

names of the applicants are mentioned in the FIR with

the specifc role attributed to each of them. Respondent

no.2 has quoted specifc incident dated 25.3.2020,

wherein involvement of the present applicants in the

crime is apparent. There is a triable case against the

applicants. There is no substance in this application.

Application is liable to be dismissed.

8. We have heard the learned APP for the respondent

State no.1.

9. We have gone through the contents of the

complaint so also perused the charge-sheet, carefully.

Though we fnd names of the applicants are mentioned

in the FIR, however, role is particularly limited to the

extent of incident allegedly occurred on 25.3.2020.

However, on the basis of the said incident, charge under

section 498-A hardly attracts. Both the applicants are

married brother-in-law. It is a case of over implication.

Even if the allegations made as against the applicants

are accepted as it is, no case is made out.

aaa/-

4 cran1367.2021.odt

10. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra and others v.

State of U.P. and others, reported in AIR 2013 SC

181, the Supreme Court has observed that "Courts are

expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of

quashing specially in cases of matrimonial dispute

whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an

offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the

FIR prima facie discloses a case of over-implication by

involving the entire family of the accused at the

instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her

scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish

of domestic bickering while settling down in her new

matrimonial surrounding."

11. In the case of Neelu Chopra and others v.

Bharti, reported in 2010 CrLJ 448, the Supreme

Court has observed that, "In order to lodge a proper

complaint, mere mention of the sections and the

language of those sections is not be all and end of the

matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of

the Court is the particulars of the offence committed

aaa/-

5 cran1367.2021.odt

by each and every accused and the role played by

each and every accused in committing of that offence.

The complaint in the instant case is sadly vague. It

does not show as to which accused has committed

what offence and what is the exact role played by

these appellants in the commission of offence. There

could be said something against Rajesh, as the

allegations are made against him more precisely but

he is no more and has already expired. Under such

circumstances, it would be an abuse of process of law

to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged

parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein on

the basis of vague and general complaint which is

silent about the precise acts of the appellants".

12. In the case of Taramani Parakh Vs. State of

Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in (2015) 11

SCC 260, in para 10, 14 and 15 the Supreme Court

has made the following observations :-

"10. The law relating to quashing is well settled. If the allegations are absurd or do not make out any case or if it can be held that there is abuse of process of law, the

aaa/-

6 cran1367.2021.odt

proceedings can be quashed but if there is a triable case the court does not go into reliability or otherwise of the version or the counter-version. In matrimonial cases, the courts have to be cautious when omnibus allegations are made particularly against relatives who are not generally concerned with the affairs of the couple. We may refer to the decisions of this Court dealing with the issue.

11. to 13. .....

14. From a reading of the complaint, it cannot be held that even if the allegations are taken as proved no case is made out. There are allegations against Respondent 2 and his parents for harassing the complainant which forced her to leave the matrimonial home. Even now she continues to be separated from the matrimonial home as she apprehends lack of security and safety and proper environment in the matrimonial home. The question whether the appellant has in fact been harassed and treated with cruelty is a matter of trial but at this stage, it cannot be said that no case is made out. Thus, quashing of proceedings before the trial is not permissible.

15. The decisions referred to in the judgment of the High Court are distinguishable. In Neelu Chopra v. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184, the parents of the husband were too old. The husband Rajesh had died and main allegations were only against him. This Court fond no cogent material against the other accused. In Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan v. Ram Gopal Poddar, (2010) 10 SCC 673 the appellant before this Court was the brother of the daughter-in-law of the accused who lodged the case against the accused for theft of jewellery during pendency of earlier Section 498-A IPC case. This Court found the said to

aaa/-

7 cran1367.2021.odt

be absurd. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 741, case was against brother and sister of the husband. Divorce had taken place between the parties. The said cases neither purport to nor can be read as laying down any infexible rule beyond the principles of quashing which have been mentioned above and applied to the facts of the cases therein which are distinguishable. In the present case the factual matrix is different from the said cases. Applying the settled principles, it cannot be held that there is no triable case against the accused."

13. It is well settled that, if the allegations are general

absurd in nature and no case is made out, criminal the

proceedings are liable to be quashed. In the instant

case, even if the allegations as made against the

applicants herein are held to be proved, no case is made

out. In view of the same, continuation of the

proceedings on the basis of such allegations against the

applicants will be abuse of the court process.

14. In view of the above and in terms of the ratio laid

down by the Supreme Court, we proceed to pass the

following order.

ORDER