Bombay High Court
Ramesh S/O. Shekuji Manjule And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 8 October, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
1 criappln 331.2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
933 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.331 OF 2020
RAMESH S/O. SHEKUJI MANJULE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Naik Dhananjay A.
APP for Respondent : Mr. R V Dasalkar
Advocate for Respondent 2 : Smt. Suwarna Zaware
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV & SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
Dated: October 08, 2021
...
PER COURT :-
1. The learned counsel for the applicants, on
instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the application of
applicant no.1-Ramesh Shekuji Manjule, 2-Chandabai
Ramesh Manjule and 3-Amol Ramesh Manjule, with the
liberty to them to fle discharge application before the
trial court.
2. Leave granted.
3. Application of applicant no.1-Ramesh Shekuji
Manjule, 2-Chandabai Ramesh Manjule and 3-Amol
Ramesh Manjule is hereby dismissed as withdrawn,
aaa/-
2 criappln 331.2020.odt
with the liberty to each of them to fle application for
discharge before the trial court in the pending case.
4. Applicant nos.4 to 7 are the accused in connection
with the FIR No.216 of 2019 registered with Rahata
Police Station, Tq. Rahata, District Ahmednagar for the
offences punishable under sections 498-A, 406, 323,
504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. At present
investigation is complete, charge-sheet came to be
submitted before the Court and case is registered as
RCC No.456 of 2020, which is pending before the 2 nd Jt.
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rahata, District
Ahmednagar.
5. By way of this application, the applicant nos.4 to 7
are seeking quashing of the FIR as well as criminal
proceedings.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that,
though names of the applicant nos.4 to 7 are mentioned
in the FIR, allegations are absurd in nature. Learned
counsel submits that respondent no.2/informant has
aaa/-
3 criappln 331.2020.odt
made allegations against them with an ulterior motive of
wreaking the vengeance. Learned counsel submits that
applicant no.4 Arati is married sister-in-law residing
with her husband applicant no.5 Ketan @ Bhausaheb
Gaikwad at Gangapr, District Aurangabad. The
applicant nos.6 and 7 are the maternal uncles, resides
at Wadarwada, Tq. Kannad, District Aurangabad.
Learned counsel submits that, it is a case of over
implication.
7. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that,
not only names of the applicants are mentioned in the
FIR, however, specifc role has been attributed to each of
them by quoting the specifc incident. Learned counsel
submits that applicants have also abused respondent
no.2/informant and threatened her in the event if the
demand made by co-accused is not fulflled. Further,
they have also instigated co-accused persons to subject
her to cruelty till the demand of Rs.10 Lakh is fulflled.
8. We have also heard the learned APP for the
Respondent-State.
aaa/-
4 criappln 331.2020.odt
9. We have carefully gone through the allegations
made in the complaint and also the charge-sheet. It
appears that the allegations have been made mainly
against the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and
brother-in-law, whose application seeking quashing of
the criminal proceedings came to be withdrawn today.
So far as the applicant no.4 Aarti is concerned, she is a
married sister-in-law and even her husband applicant
no.5 Ketan @ Bhausaheb Gaikwad is also implicated as
accused in connection with the present crime.
Applicant nos.6 and 7 are the maternal uncles. All the
applicants are residing at different places. It is a classic
example of over implication.
10. 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
aaa/-
5 criappln 331.2020.odt
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."
11. 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
aaa/-
6 criappln 331.2020.odt
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."
12. 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.
aaa/-
7 criappln 331.2020.odt
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
aaa/-
8 criappln 331.2020.odt
laying down any infexible 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."
13. In the instant case, as far as the applicants before
us are concerned, the allegations against them are
absurd and do not make out any case. From reading of
the complaint and even allegations as against them are
taken as proved, no case is made out. In the above cited
case of Taramani, the Supreme Court has observed that
in the matrimonial cases, the Courts have to be
cautious when the omnibus allegations are made
particularly against the relatives, who are not generally
concerned with the affairs of the couple. In this case,
co-accused husband has made demand of Rs.10.00
Lakh (Rs. Ten Lakh) and other family members residing
with him i.e. his parents and his brother had supported
him for making said demand. As per the allegations
made in the complaint, all of them have subjected the
aaa/-
9 criappln 331.2020.odt
respondent no.2/informant with cruelty on account of
non-fulfllment of the said demand. So far as the
applicants before us are concerned, allegations are
general in nature. Though, one incident is quoted,
however, the allegations are absurd in nature. In view of
the above and in terms of the ratio laid down by the
Supreme Court, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
I. Criminal application is allowed in terms of
prayer clause "C" and "C-1" against the
applicants before us.
II. Criminal application accordingly disposed
off.
( SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J. ) ( V.K. JADHAV, J. )
...
aaa/-
