Bombay High Court

Sattarsing Bondarya Pawara And ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Anothar on 6 October, 2021

Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni

                                                    941-CriAppln-1867-2020
                                    -1-

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

              941 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1867 OF 2020

          SATTARSING S/O BONDARYA PAWARA AND OTHERS
                               VERSUS
              STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                  ......
              Advocate for Applicants : Mrs. R. L. Jakhade
           APP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. M. M. Nerlikar
            Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Amit S. Salve
                                   .....

                               CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
                                       SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

DATED : 06th OCTOBER, 2021

PER COURT:-

1. Learned counsel for the applicants, on instructions, seeks

leave to withdraw the applications of applicant nos. 1 to 3.

2. Leave granted. The application of applicant nos. 1. Sattarsing

S/o Bondarya Pawara, 2. Bondarya S/o Kalshya Pawara and 3.

Tarakibai W/o Bondarya Pawara is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.

3. Applicant nos. 4 to 9 are the accused persons in connection

with crime no. 284 of 2020 registered with Dhadgaon Police

Station, District Nandurbar for the offence punishable under

941-CriAppln-1867-2020

Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. During pendency of

this criminal application, charge-sheet has been submitted. The

applicants have thus carried out amendment in the prayer clause

with permission of the Court and prayed for quashing of the

criminal proceedings also.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that though

names of the applicants are mentioned in the FIR, however, the

allegations as against them are general in nature without

attributing any specific role. Learned counsel submits that applicant

nos. 4, 5 and 7 are the brothers-in-law of respondent no.2.

Applicant nos.4 and 5 are in service. Applicant no.5 is residing at

Nandgaon, Taluka Nandgaon, District Nashik. Applicant No.7

Subhash is Doctor by occupation and he is practicing at Dhule and

resides their along with his family. Learned counsel submits that

applicant nos. 6, 8 and 9 are the married sisters-in-law. They are

residing at their respective matrimonial homes at different places.

Learned counsel submits that it is a case of over-implication and

almost all the family members have been implicated in connection

with the present crime.

941-CriAppln-1867-2020

5. Learned counsel for respondent no.2-informant submits that

names of all the applicants are mentioned in the FIR with specific

allegations against each of them. All the applicants allegedly

subjected respondent no.2 to cruelty as defined under Section

498-A of IPC. Respondent no.2-informant was subjected to ill-

treatment on account of non-fulfillment of a demand for

purchasing a four-wheeler. Learned counsel submits that even on

20.09.2020 all the applicants along with co-accused persons had

been to the house of parents of respondent no.2-informant and

demanded the amount and further extended beating to the parents

and other relatives of respondent no.2-informant on account of

non-fulfillment of the said demand.

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

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

complaint and also the copy of the charge-sheet. Though we find

names of applicant nos. 4 to 9 mentioned in the FIR, however, the

allegations are general in nature without quoting any specific

941-CriAppln-1867-2020

incident as such. The applicant nos. 6, 8 and 9 are the married

sisters-in-law residing with their family members at different

places. It is not clear from the allegations made in the complaint

nor from the charge-sheet as to on what date, time and place they

had been to their parents' house and subjected respondent no.2-

informant to cruelty. So far as applicant nos. 4, 5 and 7, who are

the brothers-in-law of respondent no.2-informant, are concerned,

they are also either in service or in medical profession. The

allegations as against them are absurd in nature without quoting

any specific incident.

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

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

941-CriAppln-1867-2020

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

herein on the basis of vague and general complaint which is silent

about the precise acts of the appellants".

941-CriAppln-1867-2020

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 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

941-CriAppln-1867-2020

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 Gopal Poddar, (2010) 10 SCC 673 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 498-A IPC case. This Court found the said to be absurd. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 741, 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

941-CriAppln-1867-2020

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."

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, omnibus allegations have been made, particularly against

applicant nos. 4 to 9. There is no triable case against them. It

appears that the allegations have been made mainly against co-

accused husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law, whose

application seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings came to

be withdrawn today. Thus, considering the entire aspect of the case

and in view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the

aforesaid cases, we are inclined to quash the FIR and the criminal

proceedings to the extent of applicant nos. 4 to 9. Hence, the

following order