Bombay High Court

Dattatray S/O. Vishnupant ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 13 December, 2021

Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

43 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3145 OF 2019

1. Dattatray S/o. Vishnupant Fartade
2. Ashadevi W/o. Vishnupant Fartade
3. Suraj S/o. Vishnupant Fartade
4. Venkatesh S/o. Vishnupant Fartade
5. Vasant S/o. Namdeo Ingle
6. Shakti W/o. Vasant Ingle ....Applicants.

Vs.

1. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ....Respondents.

...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. R.S. Shinde
APP for Respondent 1/State : Mr. R.V. Dasalkar
Advocate for Respondent 2 : Mr. Ravindra Nirmal (appointed)
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV &
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
DATED : 13/12/2021.

PER COURT :

. By consent of parties, heard finally at admission stage.

2. The learned counsel for applicants on instruction seeks

leave to withdraw the application of applicant Nos. 1 and 2. Leave

granted. Application of applicant No. 1 Dattatray (husband of

respondent No. 2) and respondent No. 2 Ashadevi (mother in law of

respondent No. 2) is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.

::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2021 23:55:26 :::
Cri.Appln.No.3145/2019
2

3. The applicants are seeking quashing of the F.I.R. bearing

Crime No. 32/2017 registered with Police Station Mahur, District

Nanded and also seeking quashing of the proceeding bearing

R.C.C.No. 19/2019 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,

Mahur.

4. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that though

the names of the applicants are mentioned in the F.I.R., however, the

allegations as against them are general in nature without quoting any

instance as such. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that

applicant Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are brother in laws and applicant No. 6 is the

wife of applicant No. 5. The learned counsel submits that this is the

case of over implication since all the family members have implicated

in connection with the present crime. All the applicants, brother in

laws are residing separately at different villages along with their family

members. All of them are married.

5. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the

names of applicants are mentioned in the F.I.R. with the specific role

attributed to each of them. There is triable case against them. There is

no substance in the criminal application. The criminal application is

liable to be dismissed.

::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2021 23:55:26 :::
Cri.Appln.No.3145/2019
3

6. We have also heard the learned APP for respondent No. 2.

We have carefully gone through the contents of the complaint and also

perused the chargesheet. It appears that the allegations have been

made mainly against co-accused, husband and co-accused mother in

law, whose application came to be withdrawn today. Though we find

the names of the applicants mentioned in the F.I.R., however,

allegations as against them are general in nature. It is the case of over

implication.

7. 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 "the 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."

8. In the case of Neelu Chopra and others vs. Bharti, reported

in 2010 Cr.L.J. 448, the Supreme Court has observed that, "in order to

::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2021 23:55:26 :::
Cri.Appln.No.3145/2019
4

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 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 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."

9. 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 made out any case or if it
can be held that there is abuse of process of law, the
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

::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2021 23:55:26 :::
Cri.Appln.No.3145/2019
5

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 No.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, the parents of
the husband were too old. The husband Rajesh had died
and main allegations were only against him. This Court
found no cogent material against other accused. In Manoj
Mahavir, 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 498A case. This Court found the said case
to be absurd. In Geeta Mehrotra, 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 inflexible 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

::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2021 23:55:26 :::
Cri.Appln.No.3145/2019
6

against the accused."

10. It is well settled that if the allegations are absurd in nature

and if no case is made out, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. In

the instant case, even if the allegations as made against these

applicants are held to be proved, no case is made out against them.

11. In view of the same and in terms of the ratio laid down by

the Supreme Court in above cited cases, we proceed to pass the

following order.

ORDER

I. Criminal application is allowed in terms of prayer clause

'B' and 'C'. Criminal application is accordingly disposed of.