Bombay High Court
Nitin S/O. Shivaji Kamble And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 4 October, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
cran780.20
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
36 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.780 OF 2020
NITIN S/O. SHIVAJI KAMBLE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
.....
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Gajanan G. Kadam
APP for Respondent-State: Mr. M. M. Nerlikar
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Santosh B Bhosale
.....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATED : 4th OCTOBER, 2021
PER COURT:-
1 Heard.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants, on instructions, seeks
leave to withdraw the application of applicant Nos. 1 to 3. Leave
granted. The application of applicant Nos.1) Nitin Shivaji Kamble, 2)
Shivaji Mahadu Kamble and 3) Vimal Shivaji Kamble is dismissed as
withdrawn.
3. This application is filed for quashing of F.I.R. No. 0029 of 2020
registered with Ambejogai (City) police station, district Beed for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 r.w. 34 of I.P.C.
At present, the investigation is over and the charge sheet has been
submitted. The case is now registered as R.C.C. No. 114 of 2020.
Thus, the applicants are seeking quashing of F.I.R. so also the
::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2021 00:09:24 :::
cran780.20
-2-
criminal proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the allegations
have been made mainly against co-accused, husband, mother-in-law
and father-in-law, whose application seeking quashing of F.I.R. and
the criminal proceeding came to be withdrawn. Learned counsel
submits that though the names of applicants are mentioned in the
F.I.R. the allegations are general in nature and no specific allegations
have been made against them. Learned counsel submits that
respondent No.2 informant was residing with co-accused husband at
Pune. The applicant No.4, who is bother-in-law, serving as Junior
Clerk in the court at Pali, District Raigad alongwith his wife applicant
No.7 Shilpa. Though applicant No.5 Sachin alongwith wife applicant
No.8 Diksha reside at Ambejogi, district Beed, however, they reside
separately. The applicant No.6 Amol is in private service and resides
at Pune. Learned counsel submits that it is case of over implication.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 informant submits that
the names of all applicants are mentioned in the F.I.R. with specific
allegations against each of them. As per the allegations made in the
complaint and it has been also revealed during the course of
investigation that these applicants use to instigate the co-accused
husband to make a demand of Rs.5,00,000/- for purchase of four
wheeler and respondent No.2 informant was subjected to ill-
treatment on account of non fulfillment of the said demand.
::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2021 00:09:24 :::
cran780.20
-3-
Learned counsel for respondent No.2, in order to substantiate
his contentions, placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme court in
the case of Taramani Parakh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and
others, reported in (2015) 11 SCC 260.
6. We have also heard learned A.P.P. for respondent No.1 State.
7. We have carefully gone through the allegations made in the
complaint so also the charge sheet. Though the names of these
applicants are mentioned in the F.I.R. however, the allegations as
against them are general in nature without quoting any specific
incident as such. It further appears that the allegations have been
made mainly against co-accused husband, mother-in-law and father-
in-law, whose application seeking quashing of F.I.R. and the criminal
proceedings came to be withdrawn today.
8. In the case of Taramani Parakh vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh and others, (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for
respondent No.2, the Supreme court in para 10, 14 and 15 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
::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2021 00:09:24 :::
cran780.20
-4-
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
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."
::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2021 00:09:24 :::
cran780.20
-5-
9. In the instant case, considering the allegations made in the
complaint so also as revealed during the course of investigation that
the allegations as against the applicants are absurd in nature and do
not make out any case. It is case of over implication and almost all
family members have been implicated as accused persons in
connection with the present crime.
10. Thus, considering the entire aspect of the case, we are inclined
to quash the F.I.R. and the criminal proceeding against the
applicants herein. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
A) Criminal application is allowed in terms of prayer clause "C"
and "C-1" to the extent of applicant Nos. 4) Sharad Shivaji
Kamble, 5) Sachin Shivaji Kamble, 6) Amol Shivaji Kamble, 7)
Shilpa Sharad Kamble and 8) Diksha Sachin Kamble.
B) Criminal applications is disposed of accordingly.
(SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.)
rlj/
