Bombay High Court
Amol S/O. Sidram Sule And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 16 November, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
941-CriAppln-4133-2019
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
941 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4133 OF 2019
1. AMOL S/O. SIDRAM SULE
2. PUSHPA W/O SIDRAM SULE
3. NITIN S/O SIDRAM SULE
4. SHRADDHA W/O NITIN @ SUDHIR SULE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
.....
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. B. L. Sagar Killarikar h/f
Mr. Anmole Kedar G.
APP for Respondent No.1 : Mr. R. V. Dasalkar
Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mrs. Sharda P. Chate
.....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
SANDIPKUMAR. C. MORE, JJ.
DATED : 16th NOVEMBER, 2021
PER COURT:-
1. We have heard learned counsel for the applicants for some
time.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants, on instructions, seeks
leave to withdraw the application of applicant no. 1 Amol S/o
Sidram Sule, applicant no. 3 Nitin S/o Sidram Sule and applicant
no. 4 Shraddha W/o Nitin @ Sudhir Sule with liberty to them to
file an application for discharge before the trial court in the
pending case.
941-CriAppln-4133-2019
3. Leave granted. The application of applicant no. 1 Amol S/o
Sidram Sule, applicant no. 3 Nitin S/o Sidram Sule and applicant
no. 4 Shraddha W/o Nitin @ Sudhir Sule is hereby dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty to each of them to file application/s for
discharge before the trial court in the pending case.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant no.
2 Pushpa w/o Sidram Sule is the mother-in-law of respondent no.2
and though her name is mentioned in the FIR, the allegations as
against her are general in nature without attributing any specific
role. Learned counsel submits that even the father-in-law is also
not implicated in connection with the crime. Learned counsel has
pointed out that in the complaint itself, it has been stated that after
marriage, respondent no.2 had started cohabiting with her husband
at Mumbai. However, the matrimonial home of respondent no.2 is
situated at Nanded and applicant no. 2 along with her husband is
residing there.
5. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that name of
applicant no. 2 Pushpa w/o Sidram Sule is mentioned in the FIR
941-CriAppln-4133-2019
with a specific role attributed to her. Learned counsel submits that
there is a triable case against her.
6. We have also heard learned APP for the respondent-State.
7. We have carefully gone through the allegations made in the
complaint so also the entire charge-sheet. Though we find name of
applicant no.1 Pushpa w/o Sidram Sule mentioned in the FIR,
however, the allegations against her are general in nature without
quoting any specific incident as such. It appears that the allegations
have been made mainly against co-accused persons i.e. husband
Amol, brother-in-law Nitin and his wife Shraddha, whose
application seeking quashing of the proceedings and the FIR came
to be withdrawn today.
8. 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
941-CriAppln-4133-2019
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 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 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
941-CriAppln-4133-2019
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 v. 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.
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
941-CriAppln-4133-2019
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
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
941-CriAppln-4133-2019
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. It is well settled that if the allegations are absurd and do not
make out any case, the proceedings can be quashed. In the instant
case, from a reading of the complaint and after going through the
charge-sheet, even if the allegations as against applicant no. 2
Pushpa w/o Sidram Sule are taken as proved, no case is made out.
12. In view of the above and in terms of the ratio laid down by
the Supreme Court in the above cases, we pass the following order:
ORDER
I. The criminal application to the extent of applicant no.
2 Pushpa w/o Sidram Sule is hereby allowed in terms
of prayer clauses "B" and "E".
II. The criminal application is accordingly disposed off.
(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.)
vre
