Bombay High Court
Shrikant Raosaheb Phuke And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 16 December, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
1 cran 786.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
951 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.786 OF 2021
SHRIKANT RAOSAHEB PHUKE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Dhawale Bhushan S
APP for Respondents : Mr. M M Nerlikar
Advocate for Respondent 2 : Mr. Shrikant G. Kawade
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV & SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
Dated: December 16, 2021
...
PER COURT :-
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the
applicants for some time.
2. The learned counsel for the applicants, on
instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the application of
applicant nos.1 to 3 with liberty to them to fle an
application for discharge before the trial court. Leave
granted. Application of applicant no.1-Shrikant s/o
Raosaheb Phuke (husband of respondent no.2), 2-
Raosaheb Bhikanrao Phuke (father-in-law of respondent
no.2) and 3-Devyani Raosaheb Phuke (mother-in-law of
respondent No.2) is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty
aaa/-
2 cran 786.21.odt
to them to fle an application for discharge before the
trial court.
3. The applicants/accused are seeking quashing of
the FIR bearing crime no.40 of 2021 registered with
Chaklamba police station, Tq Gevrai, District Beed for
the offence punishable u/s 498-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of
the IPC and also the criminal proceedings vide RCC
No.116 of 2021 pending before the J.M.F.C., Georai,
District Beed.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that,
though names of the applicants are mentioned in the
FIR, however, the allegations as against them are
general in nature, without quoting any specifc incident
as such. Learned counsel submits that the applicant
no.4 is cousin father-in-law, applicant no.5 is married
sister-in-law, applicant no.6 is brother-in-law, applicant
no.7 is cousin father-in-law, applicant no.8 is cousin
mother-in-law. Learned counsel submits that it is a
case of over implication, since almost all the family
members have been implicated in connection with the
aaa/-
3 cran 786.21.odt
present crime. Learned counsel submits that allegations
to some extent which are also general in nature mainly
made against co-accused father-in-law and mother-in-
law, whose application seeking quashing of the
proceedings came to be withdrawn today with liberty to
them to fle an application for discharge before the trial
court in a pending case.
5. 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 was subjected to ill-treatment on account of non-
fulflment of demand of Rs.5 lacs for purchasing four
wheeler vehicle and she was fnally driven out from the
house on account of non-fulfllment of the said demand.
She was also threatened about performing of the second
marriage of co-accused husband. Learned counsel
submits that there is no substance in this criminal
application. The same is liable to be dismissed.
aaa/-
4 cran 786.21.odt
6. We have also heard the learned APP for the
respondent-State.
7. We have carefully gone through the allegations
made in the complaint, so also the charge-sheet.
Though, we fnd names of the applicants are mentioned
in the FIR, however, allegations against them are general
in nature, without attributing any specifc individual
role to each of them. The applicant nos.4,7 and 8 are
the distant relatives, even then, they have been
implicated in connection with the present crime.
Furthermore, applicant no.5 is a married sister-in-law
residing in Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad
alongwith her husband at her matrimonial home. It is a
case of over implication.
8. 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
aaa/-
5 cran 786.21.odt
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."
9. In the case of Neelu Chopra and others Vs.
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
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
aaa/-
6 cran 786.21.odt
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".
10. 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
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.
aaa/-
7 cran 786.21.odt
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
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
aaa/-
8 cran 786.21.odt
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."
11. It is well settled that, if the allegations are absurd
in nature and no case is made out, proceedings are
liable to be quashed.
12. In the instant case, even if the allegations as made
as against the applicants are held to be proved, no
triable case is made out against them. It is a classic
example of over implication.
13. In view of the above and in terms of the ratio laid
down by the Supreme Court in the above cited cases, we
proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
1. Criminal Application is hereby allowed in terms
of prayer Clause "B" and C-1 as against the
applicants.
2. Criminal Application accordingly disposed off.
( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. ) ( V.K. JADHAV, J. )
...
aaa/-
