Bombay High Court
Jyoti W/O. Rajendra Thombare And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 8 March, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, M. G. Sewlikar
{1} CRI.APPLN.287 OF 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
43 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.287 OF 2020
1. Jyoti W/o. Rajendra Thombare
Age: 36 years, Occu.: Household.
2. Rajendra S/o.Tatyarao Thombare
Age: 38 years, Occu.: Agri.
Both R/o. Borgaon Ajar, Tq.Phulambri,
Dist.Aurangabad.
3. Surekha W/o.Bhaskar Jivrag
Age: 32 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o.M-2, 46-3, Ahinsa Marg,
Near Vedant Medical, Sant Dnyaneshwar
Nagar, N-9, Cidco, Aurangabad,
Tq. & Dist.Aurangabad. ..Applicants
(Orig. Accused No.4 to 6)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
For Harsul Police Station,
Tq. & Dist.Aurangabad.
2. Ruupali W/o. Rahul Doud
Age: 25 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. - C/o. Sarjerao Dakale
R/o. Shiveshwar Colony,
Bhagatsing Nagar Road,
Harsul, Aurangabad.
Tq. & Dist.Aurangabad. ..Respondents
(Resp.No.2 is Orig. Informant)
...
Advocate for Applicants : Shri Amol Gandhi h/f. Shri P.S.Mehta
APP for Respondent No.1-State : Shri A.V.Deshmukh
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Miss Ashlesha Kulkarni
(appointed)
...
CORAM : V.K.JADHAV &
M.G.SEWLIKAR, JJ.
DATE: 8th March, 2021
{2} CRI.APPLN.287 OF 2020
ORAL JUDGMENT:- (Per: V.K.Jadhav, J.)
1. Heard fnally with consent of the parties at the admission
stage.
2. The learned counsel for the applicants, on instructions,
seeks leave to withdraw the application to the extent of
applicant No.1 - Jyoti Rajendra Thombare. Leave granted.
Application of applicant No.1 - Jyoti is disposed of as withdrawn.
3. This application pertains to quashing of FIR No.5 of 2020
dated 04-01-2020 for the ofence punishable under Sections
498A, 323, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. Furthermore, during the pendency of this
application, the charge-sheet has been submitted and the
amendment is carried out under the order of this Court in the
prayer clause for quashing of the proceedings bearing R.C.C.
No.1392 of 2020 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Aurangabad, in connection with the aforesaid crime.
4. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that though
the names of applicant Nos.2 and 3 are mentioned in the FIR,
however, the allegations have been made mainly against the co-
accused husband and sister in law - Jyoti Rajendra Thombare.
{3} CRI.APPLN.287 OF 2020
Applicant No.2 - Rajendra Tatyarao Thombare is husband of
applicant No.1 - Jyoti (sister in law), whereas applicant No.3 -
Surekha Bhaskar Jivrag is another married sister in law. The
learned counsel for the applicants submits that general
allegations have been made against applicant Nos.2 and 3
without quoting any specifc incident as such.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-informant submits
that the names of applicant Nos.2 and 3 are mentioned in the FIR
with specifc role attributed to each of them. The learned
counsel submits that applicant No.3-Surekha resides in
Aurangabad itself and she used to visit the matrimonial house of
respondent No.2. There are allegations that all the accused
persons have harassed respondent No.2-informant on account of
non-fulfllment of unlawful demand of cash amount for
purchasing a shop. The learned counsel for respondent No.2
submits that there is no substance in this application and
application is liable to be dismissed.
6. We have heard learned APP for the respondent No.1-State.
We have carefully gone through the contents of the FIR. We have
also carefully gone through the charge-sheet. It appears that
the allegations have been made mainly against co-accused
{4} CRI.APPLN.287 OF 2020
husband and applicant No.1 - Jyoti (sister in law), whose
application seeking quashing of FIR is withdrawn today. Though
the names of applicant Nos.2 and 3 are mentioned in the FIR and
they have been impleaded as accused and charge-sheet has
been submitted against them, however, there are general
allegations against them without quoting any specifc incident.
7. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
and Ors., reported in AIR 2013 SC 181, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court by referring the observations made in the case of Ramesh
Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2005) SCC (Cri.) 735 to
738, in paragraph No.17 has made the following observations:
"17. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in this matter had
been pleased to hold that the bald allegations made against the
sister-in-law by the complainant appeared to suggest the anxiety
of the informant to rope in as many of the husband's relatives as
possible. It was held that neither the FIR nor the charge sheet
furnished the legal basis for the magistrate to take cognizance of
the ofences alleged against the appellants. The learned Judges
were pleased to hold that looking to the allegations in the FIR and
the contents of the charge-sheet, none of the alleged ofences
under Sections 498A, 406 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act were made against the married sister of the complainant's
husband who was undisputedly not living with the family of the
complainant's husband. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court
were pleased to hold that the High Court ought not to have
relegated the sister-in- law to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the
{5} CRI.APPLN.287 OF 2020
proceedings against the appellants were quashed and the appeal
was allowed."
8. In paragraph No.20, by referring the observations made in
the case of G.V.Rao Vs. L.H.V.Prasad and Ors. reported in (2000)
3 SCC 693, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following
observations:
"20. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt
observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao v.
L.H.V. Prasad and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/3156/2000 : (2000) 3
SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had
held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint
arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members
had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed
and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we
entirely agree that:
"there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent
times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to
enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully.
But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often
assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which
elders of the family are also involved with the result that those
who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are
rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the
criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be
mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that
the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the
disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fghting it out
in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and
in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their
cases in diferent courts."
{6} CRI.APPLN.287 OF 2020
The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts
would not encourage such disputes."
9. In paragraph No.27 of the Judgment, while concluding the
issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following
observations:
"27. We, therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate to quash
the proceedings initiated against the appellants Geeta Mehrotra
and Ramji Mehrotra as the FIR does not disclose any material
which could be held to be constituting any ofence against these
two appellants. Merely by making a general allegation that they
were also involved in physical and mental torture of the
complainant-respondent No.2 without mentioning even a single
incident against them as also the fact as to how they could be
motivated to demand dowry when they are only related as
brother and sister of the complainant's husband, we are pleased
to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings in so far as these
appellants are concerned and consequently the order passed by
the High Court shall stand overruled. The appeal accordingly is
allowed"
10. In the case of Preeti Gupta and Anr. Vs. State of
Jharkhand and Anr. reported in AIR 2010 SC 3363, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, after referring various cases on this point, in
paragraph No.33 of the Judgment, has made the following
observations:
"33. The ultimate object of justice is to fnd out the truth and
punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To fnd out the truth is
{7} CRI.APPLN.287 OF 2020
a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of
implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not
uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it
is difcult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be
extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints
and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing
with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of
husband's close relations who had been living in diferent cities
and never visited or rarely visited the place where the
complainant resided would have an entirely diferent complexion.
The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized
with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long
and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and
bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a
matter of common knowledge that in cases fled by the
complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to
remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of
amicable settlement altogether. The process of sufering is
extremely long and painful."
11. In the instant case, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid
cases squarely applies. There are no allegations against
applicant No.2 - Rajendra. So far as applicant No.3 - Surekha,
who is sister in law, is concerned, her name is only referred in the
FIR without making any specifc allegation. Thus, in view of
above, we are inclined to allow this application to the extent of
applicant Nos.2 and 3. Hence, the following order:
{8} CRI.APPLN.287 OF 2020
ORDER
I) Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer
clause-'A-1' to the extent of the applicant Nos.2 and 3.
II) The High Court Legal Services Authority Sub-
Committee, Aurangabad shall pay the fees of the appointed
counsel as per the Rules.
III) Criminal Application is accordingly disposed of.
( M.G.SEWLIKAR ) ( V.K.JADHAV )
JUDGE JUDGE
SPT
