Vishwanath Madhavrao Sabne And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 16252 Bom

                                            1          Cri. Appln. 732 / 2021


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     953 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.732 OF 2021

                  VISHWANATH MADHAVRAO SABNE AND OTHERS
                                  VERSUS
                   THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

                                     ...
Mr. N.E. Deshmukh, Advocate for applicants
Mr. R.V. Dasalkar, APP for respondent - State
Mr. Suresh P. Pandav, Advocate for respondent no. 2
                                     ...

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

DATE : 24TH NOVEMBER 2021

ORAL ORDER :

1. Heard finally, by consent at the admission stage.

2. The applicants - original accused are seeking quashing of

the FIR no. 74 of 2021 registered with MIDC Police Station, Latur, Dist.

Latur for the offences punishable under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506

r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. During the pendency of this Criminal

Application, chargesheet has been submitted. Learned counsel for the

applicants has carried out the amendment. The applicants are also

seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings bearing RCC no. 501 of

2021 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur.

3. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the

allegations have been mainly against the husband, the father-in-law and

mother-in-law of respondent no. 2, who are not applicants before the

Court. Applicant no. 1 - Vishwanath is the maternal uncle of the

2 Cri. Appln. 732 / 2021

husband of respondent no. 2. Applicant no. 2 - Asha is the married

sister-in-law of respondent no. 2 and applicant no. 3 is the husband of

applicant no. 2 - Asha. Learned counsel has taken us through the

entire chargesheet and has pointed out from the allegations made in the

complaint, that the allegations as against the applicants are general in

nature without narrating any specific incident. Learned counsel submits

that even the allegations as against the applicants are absurd in nature.

Learned counsel submits that the marriage was performed way back in

the year 2015 and after the marriage, the respondent no. 2 has started

co-habiting with her husband in her matrimonial home at Latur. Her

husband is an Engineer and in the private employment at Delhi. It has

been alleged in the complaint that she was treated well for a period of

one month after the marriage, however, thereafter, she was taken to

Delhi by her husband. Respondent no.2 has delivered a female baby in

the year 2017. Learned counsel has pointed out from the allegations in

the complaint that without quoting any date or year, it has been simply

alleged in the complaint that all the applicants and the co-accused have

asked respondent no.2 to bring Rs.20,00,000/- from the parents for

purchasing the house. It has also been alleged, without referring any

specific name that she was also scolded for giving birth to a female

child. It has been stated in the complaint itself that in the year 2019,

when the complaint was lodged and when the parties were called in the

women's grievance redressal committee, a compromise has been taken

place and the respondent no.2 was taken to her matrimonial home for

further cohabitation. It has been merely stated in the complaint that

3 Cri. Appln. 732 / 2021

husband of the respondent no. 2 went to Delhi on 03-11-2021. It has

been merely alleged in the complaint that thereafter, the applicants

herein and the co-accused persons have given threats to respondent

no. 2 to bring Rs.20,00,000/- or otherwise she will be killed. Learned

counsel submits that during the course of investigation, the statements

of the parents of respondent no. 2 have been recorded, however, they

have no first hand knowledge of the alleged ill-treatment and on the

basis of the disclosure made to them by respondent no. 2, they have

stated about the ill-treatment meted to respondent no.2 at Delhi.

4. Learned counsel for applicants submits that so far as

applicants are concerned, applicant no. 2 is the married sister-in-law,

Lecturer by occupation. She got married way back in 1999 and she

resides at Aurangabad along with her husband - applicant no. 3.

Applicant no. 3, who is husband of applicant no. 2, is Executive

Engineer in Irrigation Department. Applicant no. 4 is a Dentist by

profession. She got married in the year 2012. She resides with the

husband and family members of her husband at Ahmednagar since her

marriage. Learned counsel submits that the allegations as against them

are absurd. There are no specific incidents quoted, as to when these

persons had been to matrimonial home of the respondent no. 2 and

demanded the said amount and also given threats to respondent no.2, if

the said demands are not fulfilled. Learned counsel submits that it is a

classic example of over-implication and almost all the family members

have been implicated in connection with the present crime and even the

4 Cri. Appln. 732 / 2021

maternal uncle of husband of respondent no.2 is also not spared.

Applicant no.1 is the maternal uncle of husband of respondent no. 2,

who is Teacher by occupation, serving at village Aarvi, Tq. and District -

Latur.

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

names of all the applicants are mentioned in the FIR without specific

role attributed to each of them. Though, after the marriage, respondent

no. 2 started residing in her matrimonial home, however, she went to

Delhi to stay with her husband and even in the year 2017, she gave

birth to a female child. Learned counsel submits that the respondent

no.2 was subjected to ill-treatment after the birth of the female child for

two reasons. The applicants and the co-accused have demanded

Rs.20,00,000/- for purchasing the house and also for the reason that

she gave birth to a female child instead of a male child. However, the

matter was compromised and again on 30-10-2019, the respondent no.

2 has started co-habiting with her husband in her matrimonial home. On

03-11-2021, when her husband left for Delhi, the applicants and the co-

accused have again demanded Rs.20,00,000/- for purchasing the house

and further gave threats to kill her, if the demand is not fulfilled. She was

also subjected to ill-treatment on the count that she gave birth to a

female child. Learned counsel submits that there is a triable case

against the applicants, there is no substance in the Criminal Application

and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5 Cri. Appln. 732 / 2021

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

State. We have carefully gone through the contents of the complaint and

also the chargesheet.

7. The applicants herein are residing at different places like

Aurangabad, Ahmednagar etc. However, the allegations as against

them are general in nature without quoting any specific incident.

We have also mentioned the relations of the applicants with the

respondent no. 2. The allegations have been made mainly against the

co-accused - husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law and they are not

the applicants before us. It is the case of over-implication. The

respondent no. 2 has implicated almost all the family members,

including the married sisters-in-law and even the husband of married

sister-in-law - Asha.

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 "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."

6 Cri. Appln. 732 / 2021

9. 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 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."

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 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

7 Cri. Appln. 732 / 2021

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.

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."

8 Cri. Appln. 732 / 2021

11. In the above cited case, the Supreme Court has observed

that the Courts are expected to adopt cautious approach in the matters

of quashing of FIR, specially in the cases of matrimonial disputes

whether the FIR, in-fact, discloses commission of an offence by the

relatives of the principal accused or the FIR, prima-facie, discloses over-

implication of the accused at the instance of the complainant. It is well

settled that the allegations are absurd in nature and do not make out

any case, the proceedings can be quashed. From reading the

complaint and after going through the chargesheet in its entirety, even if

the allegations as against the applicants are taken as proved, no case is

made out as against them. There will be abuse of the process of the

Court, if the proceeding remain continued against them.

12. In view of the above and in terms of the law laid down in the

above cited case, we proceed to pass the following order :-

ORDER

I) Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer

clause (D).

II) Criminal Application is accordingly disposed of.

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

arp/