Bombay High Court
Ambadas Laxman Gavhane And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 9 December, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
{1}
crappln2072.20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2072 OF 2020
01 Ambadas s/o Laxman Gavhane
02 Laxman s/o Appaji Gavhane
03 Janabai w/o Laxman Gavhane
04 Ankush s/o Laxman Gavhane
05 Chayya w/o Ankush Gavhane
06 Narayan @ Popat s/o Bapu Girhe
07 Kisan @ Kishor s/o Bapu Girhe
08 Saheba @ Bhanudas s/o Eknath
Gavhane
09 Karbhari s/o Eknath Gavhane
10 Viay s/o Ramdas Gavhane
11 Bapu s/o Kondiram Girhe
12 Hirabai w/o Bapu Girhe. Applicant
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
02 The Police Station In-charge,
Belwandi Police Station,
Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar.
03 Kalyani w/o Ambadas Gavhane Respondents
Mr. D. R. Markad, advocate holding for Mr. G.P. Darandale,
advocate for the applicants
Mr. K. S. Patil, APP for the Respondents No.1 & 2.
Mr. G. G. Kadam, advocate for Respondent No.3.
::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2021 04:25:53 :::
{2}
crappln2072.20.odt
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
DATE : 09th December, 2021.
PC :
1 By consent, application is heard fnally at the stage of
admission.
2 Learned Counsel for the applicants, on instructions,
seeks leave to withdraw the application of applicants no. 1 to 3.
3 Leave granted. Application of applicant no.1-
Ambadas, applicant no.2- Laxman and applicant no.3 - Janabai is
hereby dismissed as withdrawn.
4 Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that
except the incident allegedly taken place on 24.02.2020, though
names of the applicants are mentioned in the First Information
Report, no specifc role is attributed to them. The learned Counsel
submits that so far as the incident allegedly occurred on
24.02.2020 is concerned, the allegations have been mainly made
against co-accused Ambadas, co-accused Laxman and co-accused
Janabai, whose application, seeking quashing of the proceedings,
{3}
crappln2072.20.odt
came to be withdrawn.
5 Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that
applicant no.4 is the brother-in-law of applicant no.1 serving in the
Army and as per the certifcate issued by the Offcer Commanding,
he was on duty on 24.02.2020 at Ranjit Enclave, Bhatinda
Cantonment. The learned Counsel submits that applicant no.5 is
the wife of applicant no.4 and she is also residing with applicant
no.4 and on the date of the incident, she was also along with her
husband at Bhatinda Cantonment. The Commanding Offcer has
certifed about her presence along with her husband - applicant
no.4 at Bhatinda Cantonment on 24.02.2020. The learned
Counsel submits that applicants no. 6 and 7 are the brothers of
applicant no.5 and applicants no. 11 and 12 are parents of
applicant no.5. Applicants no. 8, 9 and 10 are the cousin
brothers-in-law of Respondent No.2. The learned Counsel submits
that except their names are mentioned in the First Information
Report, the allegations made as against them are general in nature.
The learned Counsel submits that only one incident dated
24.02.2020 is alleged in the complaint and there are no allegations
against these applicants that they have subjected Respondent
No. 2 to cruelty, as defned under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
{4}
crappln2072.20.odt
Code. The learned Counsel submits that it is a case of over
implication.
6 Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that
names of all the applicants are mentioned in the complaint and so
far as the incident occurred on 24.02.2020 is concerned, a specifc
role is attributed to each of them. There is a triable case against
these applicants. There is no substance in this application and
the application is liable to be dismissed.
7 We have also heard the learned A.P.P. for the
Respondent-State.
8 We have carefully gone through the contents of the
complaint so also perused the charge sheet. Except the incident
dated 24.02.2020, wherein allegations have been made mainly
against applicants no. 1 to 3 i.e. co-accused husband, father-in-
law and mother in-law of Respondent No.2, no specifc role has
been attributed to these applicants. Even in the incident dated
24.02.2020, no specifc role has been attributed to each of the
applicants. Applicants no. 8 to 10 are the cousin brothers-in-law
of Respondent No.2. Applicants no. 11 and 12 are the parents of
{5}
crappln2072.20.odt
applicant no.5. Applicants no.6 & 7 are the brothers of applicant
no.5. Furthermore, applicants no. 4 and 5 were at Bhatinda
cantonment, on 24.02.2020, as certifed by the Commanding
Offcer. This is a classic example of over implication and almost all
the family members have been implicated in connection with the
present crime.
9 In the case of Gita 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."
10 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
{6}
crappln2072.20.odt
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 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".
11 In the case of Taramani Parakh v. State of Madhya
Pradesh and others, reported in (2015) 11 SCC 260, in para 10 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 proceedings can be quashed but
{7}
crappln2072.20.odt
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."
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
{8}
crappln2072.20.odt
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 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."
12 It is well settled that if the allegations made in the
complaint are accepted as it is and no case is made out against the
applicants, the proceedings can be quashed. In the instant case,
the allegations, as made against these applicants, even if are held
to be proved, no case is made out. It is a case of over implication.
13 In view of the above and in terms of the ratio laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited cases, we proceed
{9}
crappln2072.20.odt
to pass the following order:
(i) Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause "B"
to the extent of applicant no. 4 - Ankush s/o Laxman Gavhane,
applicant no. 5 - Chayya w/o Ankush Gavhane, applicant no. 6
Narayan @ Popat s/o Bapu Girhe, applicant no. 7 Kisan @ Kishor
s/o Bapu Girhe, applicant no.8 - Saheba @ Bhanudas s/o Eknath
Gavhane, applicant no. 9 - Karbhari s/o Eknath Gavhane,
applicant no. 10 - Viay s/o Ramdas Gavhane, applicant no.11
Bapu s/o Kondiram Girhe and applicant no.12 - Hirabai w/o Bapu
Girhe.
14 Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly.
(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) (V. K. JADHAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
adb
