Deepak Bhagwat Gohil And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 16250 Bom

                                           1        Cri. Appln. 455 / 2020


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     943 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 455 OF 2020

                      DEEPAK BHAGWAT GOHIL AND OTHERS
                                   VERSUS
                    THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

                                       ...
Mr. A.S. Savale, Advocate for applicants
Mr. S.J. Salgare, APP for respondent - State
Mr. V.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent no. 2
                                       ...

                                    CORAM : V.K. JADHAV AND
                                            SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.

DATE : 24TH NOVEMBER 2021

ORAL ORDER :

1. We have heard learned counsel for the applicants for some

time. Learned counsel for the applicants, on instructions, seeks leave

to withdraw the application of applicant no. 1 - Deepak Bhagwat Gohil

(husband of respondent no. 2).

2. Application of applicant no. 1 - Deepak Bhagwat Gohil is

hereby dismissed as withdrawn.

3. Applicants - original accused are seeking quashing of the

FIR no. 366 of 2019 dated 09-09-2019 registered with Pundlik Nagar

Police Station, Aurangabad for the offences punishable under section

498-A, 323, 504 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also the criminal

proceedings bearing Criminal Case no. 2984 of 2019 pending before the

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad.

2 Cri. Appln. 455 / 2020

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the

co-accused - Deepak and the respondent no. 2 have performed the

marriage in the year 2017. It was the second marriage of both of them.

The co-accused - Deepak is having one daughter from his first

marriage, whereas respondent no. 2 is also having a son from her

previous marriage. Learned counsel submits that in the year 2018,

co-accused - Deepak had lodged the complaint against the respondent

no. 2 in the Chandan Nagar Police Station, District - Pune, alleging

therein that the son of the respondent no.2 from her first marriage had

misbehaved with the daughter of the co-accused - Deepak. Further, in

connection with the same, the respondent no. 2 has prepared one video

by interacting with the minor daughter of the co-accused - Deepak.

5. We are not recording the details of the said misbehaviour in

this order, considering the age of the minor children of both the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that thus, the

relations between the co-accused - Deepak and the respondent no. 2

became strained and in consequence thereof, for wreaking vengeance

against the co-accused - Deepak and his family members, respondent

no. 2 has lodged the present complaint belatedly.

7. Learned counsel for applicants submits that the allegations

have been made mainly against co-accused - Deepak (husband of

respondent no. 2), whose application seeking quashing of the

3 Cri. Appln. 455 / 2020

proceeding came to be withdrawn today. So far as the applicants no. 2

and 3 are concerned, they are the aged father-in-law and mother-in-law

of respondent no. 2. Applicant no. 2 - Bhagwat is 76 years of age at

present and he is a retired person on pension and applicant no. 3 is the

mother-in-law, 69 years of age at present. Though, their names are

mentioned in the FIR, however, the allegations as against them are

general in nature and no specific role has been levelled against them

even during the course of investigation. Learned counsel submits that it

is a case of over-implication.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submits that

though the co-accused - Deepak has lodged the complaint in the year

2018 in Chandan Nagar Police Station, Pune against the respondent

no.2 and even though the respondent no. 2 was called in the Police

Station twice for making an enquiry in connection with the said crime,

however, no crime has been registered against her. Learned counsel

submits that the co-accused - Deepak has demanded an amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- for purchasing the house and the respondent no. 2 was

subjected to cruelty on account of non-fulfilment of the said demand.

Learned counsel submits that the names of the present applicants are

mentioned in the complaint with specific allegations against each of

them. There is a specific role attributed to each of them and the

applicants no. 2 and 3 have joined hands with the co-accused - Deepak

in demanding the amount and further subjected the respondent no.2 to

cruelty on account of the non-fulfilment of the said demand.

4 Cri. Appln. 455 / 2020

9. We have also heard the learned APP for the respondent -

State.

10. We have carefully gone through the allegations made in the

complaint so also the chargesheet. It appears that the relations

between the parties, particularly, the applicant no. 1/co-accused -

Deepak and his wife - respondent no. 2 have been strained to a

considerable extent, however, the allegations have been made mainly

against the co-accused - Deepak (husband of respondent no.2 ), whose

application seeking quashing of the proceedings came to be withdrawn

today. Though, we find the names of the present applicants no. 2 and 3

are mentioned in the FIR, however, the allegations as against them are

general in nature without quoting any specific incident as such.

Applicants no. 2 and 3 are aged persons.

11. 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 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.

5 Cri. Appln. 455 / 2020

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 against the accused."

12. 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 the reading of the complaint, and even after going through

the entire chargesheet, it cannot be held that even if the allegations are

6 Cri. Appln. 455 / 2020

taken as proved as against these two applicants, no case is made out.

In matrimonial cases, the Courts have to be cautious when omnibus

allegations are made. It is a case of over-implication. The relations

between the respondent no. 2 and co-accused - Deepak have been

strained considerably because of their children from their first marriage,

respectively. In view of the same, so far as the present applicants no. 2

and 3 are concerned, it appears that the allegations as against them is

the outcome of the strained relations between co-accused and the

respondent no. 2.

13. In view of the above, and in terms of the law laid down by

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

following order :

ORDER

I) Criminal Application is hereby allowed in terms of prayer

clause (B) to the extent of the applicant no. 2 - Bhagwat Gohil and

applicant no. 3 - Suman Bhagwat Gohil.

II) Criminal Application is accordingly disposed of.

 [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.]                             [ V.K. JADHAV, J. ]

arp/