Bombay High Court
Purushottam Suresh Chaudhari And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 6 October, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
937-CriAppln-2949-2019
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
937 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2949 OF 2019
PURUSHOTTAM SURESH CHAUDHARI AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
......
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. N. L. Choudhari
APP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. R. V. Dasalkar
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. S. R. Patil
.....
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 application of applicant nos. 1 to 3.
2. Leave granted. The application of applicant no.1.
Purushottam Suresh Chaudhari, 2. Suresh Shankar Chaudhari and
3. Meena Suresh Chaudhari is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.
3. Applicant nos. 4 to 7 are the accused persons in connection
with crime no. 184/2019 registered with Ramanand Nagar Police
937-CriAppln-2949-2019
Station, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon for the offence punishable under
Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. During
pendency of this criminal application, charge-sheet has been
submitted and thus amendment was carried out in the prayer
clause under permission of the Court. The applicants are also
seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the
allegations have 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the criminal proceedings came to be withdrawn today. Learned
counsel submits that applicant no.4 Rahul is the brother-in-law
who is serving in Police Department as a Constable and applicant
no.5 Vrashali is the married sister-in-law. Applicant no.6 Ganesh is
the husband of applicant no.5. Applicant no.7 Gangaram is a
distant relative. Learned counsel submits that applicant nos. 5 and
6 reside at Chandwad, Nashik Rural, District Nashik. Learned
counsel has pointed out from the allegations made in the complaint
so also from the charge-sheet that the allegations against these
applicants are general in nature without quoting any specific
incident. Learned counsel submits that it is a case of over-
937-CriAppln-2949-2019
implication and all the family members came to be implicated in
connection with the present crime.
5. Learned counsel for respondent no.2-informant submits that
names of all the applicants are mentioned in the FIR with a specific
role attributed to each of them. Learned counsel submits that the
respondent-informant was subjected to cruelty on account of non-
fulfillment of a demand of Rs.5,00,000/- for purchasing a plot. She
was also subjected to ill-treatment for the reason that co-accused
husband was suspecting about her character and co-accused
husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law used to keep her in a
locked room. Learned counsel submits that there is sufficient
evidence against the applicants.
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 charge-sheet. Though names of the
applicant nos. 4 to 7 are mentioned in the FIR, however, the
allegations against them are general in nature without quoting any
specific incident. So far as applicant no.4 Rahul is concerned, who
937-CriAppln-2949-2019
is the brother-in-law serving in Police Department, no specific
allegations have been made against him. Applicant no.5 Vrashali is
the married sister-in-law and she resides at Chandwad, Nashik
Rural, District Nashik along with her husband i.e. applicant no.6
Ganesh. It has been merely alleged in the complaint that applicant
no.5 had gone to her parents' house for delivery purpose and at
that time, she has scolded respondent no.2-informant for the
reason that she did not touch her feet. Except this incident, the
allegations as against these applicants are absurd in nature.
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
bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial
surrounding."
937-CriAppln-2949-2019
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".
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:
937-CriAppln-2949-2019
"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
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
937-CriAppln-2949-2019
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
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."
937-CriAppln-2949-2019
11. In the instant case, we find that the allegations as against the
applicant nos. 4 to 7 are absurd and do not make out any case.
There is no triable case against them. We find that the allegations
have been made mainly against co-accused husband, father-in-law
and mother-in-law, whose application seeking quashing of the
proceedings came to be withdrawn today. It is well settled that in
matrimonial cases, the courts have to be cautious when omnibus
allegations are made, particularly against the relatives who are not
generally concerned with the affairs of the couple. The instant case
is a classic example of over-implication since almost all the family
members have been implicated in connection with the present
crime. We are thus inclined to quash the FIR and the criminal
proceedings to the extent of applicant nos. 4 to 7. Hence, we
proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
I. The criminal application is hereby allowed in terms of
prayer clauses "B" and "B-1" to the extent of applicant
nos. 4. Rahul Suresh Chaudhari (accused no.4), 5.
Vrashali Ganesh Vyavhare (accused no.5), 6. Ganesh
937-CriAppln-2949-2019
Mukund Vyavhare (accused no.6) and 7. Gangaram
Kishan Chaudhari (accused no.7).
II. The Criminal Application is accordingly disposed off.
(SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.)
vre
