Bombay High Court
Gorakh S/O Dhondiram Wagh vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 24 November, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
1 Cri. Appln. 2258 / 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
948 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2258 OF 2020
GORAKH S/O DHONDIRAM WAGH & ANR.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Mr. Dhananjay K. Thote, Advocate for applicant
Mr. S.J. Salgare, APP for respondent - State
Mr. C.C. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no. 2
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV AND
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
DATE : 24TH NOVEMBER 2021
ORAL ORDER :
1. Leave to correct the prayer clause (B-1) to the extent of the
number of case pending before the Court at Vaijapur.
2. The applicants - original accused are seeking quashing of
the FIR bearing crime no. 369 of 2020 registered with Vaijapur Police
Station, District - Aurangabad for the offences punishable under section
498-A, 377, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. During the
pendency of this Criminal Application, chargesheet has been submitted.
The applicants - accused are also seeking quashing of the proceedings
bearing RCC no. 46 of 2021 pending before the Court at Vaijapur.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant
no. 2 is the sister-in-law of the respondent no. 2. Applicant no. 1 is
husband of applicant no. 2. Learned counsel submits that though the
::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2021 23:54:33 :::
2 Cri. Appln. 2258 / 2020
names of the applicants are mentioned in the FIR, however, except their
names, no allegations have been made against them. So far as
applicant no. 1 is concerned, the allegations against him are vague in
nature. Learned counsel submits that it is a case of over-implication
and the family members have been implicated in connection with the
present crime. Learned counsel has pointed out from the complaint that
the allegations only have been made against the co-accused, who is not
an applicant before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submits that the
applicant no. 1 is serving in Police department. He is an influential
person. Even after registration of this crime, applicant no. 1 has given
threats to respondent no. 2 for withdrawal of the complaint. Learned
counsel submits that the names of the applicants are mentioned in the
FIR with a specific role attributed to each of them. There is no
substance in this Criminal Application. Criminal Application is liable to be
dismissed.
5. We have also heard learned APP for the respondents.
6. We have carefully perused the allegations in the FIR and
have also gone through the chargesheet. It appears that the
respondent no. 2 got married with co-accused Sandip way back in the
year 2008. Co-accused Sandip is serving in Army. The allegations
have been made mainly against him pertaining to his sex urge etc.
So far as present applicants are concerned, applicant no. 2 is the sister-
::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2021 23:54:33 :::
3 Cri. Appln. 2258 / 2020
in-law of respondent no. 2 and applicant no. 1 is the husband of
applicant no. 2. It has been simply alleged in the complaint that
applicant no. 1, who is serving in the Police department, used to give
threats to the respondent no. 2. So far as applicant no. 2 is concerned,
except her name in the complaint, no allegations are made against her.
Even no details have been given so far as the allegations as against
applicant no. 1 are concerned.
7. 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.
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
::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2021 23:54:33 :::
4 Cri. Appln. 2258 / 2020
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. It is well settled that in a matrimonial case, the Courts have
to be cautious when omnibus allegations are made, particularly against
the accused, who are generally not connected with the affairs of the
couple. In the instant case, from the reading of the FIR and even if the
allegations as against the applicants are taken as proved, no case is
made out. On the other hand, the allegations as against the applicant
no.1 are absurd.
::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2021 23:54:33 :::
5 Cri. Appln. 2258 / 2020
9. In view of the same, in terms of the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in the above cited case, we proceed to pass the
following order :
ORDER
I) Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B)
and (B-1).
II) Criminal Application is accordingly disposed of.
[SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.] [ V.K. JADHAV, J. ]
arp/
