Mahesh Punjaram Deore And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 14901 Bom

                                                                       cran199.20
                                      -1-


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  944 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.199 OF 2020


 1.      Mahesh Punjaram Deore
 2.      Jyoti Punjaram Deore
 3.      Punjaram Sonu Deore
 4.      Archana Yashwant Thombare                      ...Applicants

               Versus

 1.      The State of Maharashtra
 2.      Vidya Mahesh Deore                             ...Respondents

                                       .....
      Advocates for Applicants : Mr. J. V Deshpande and S. N. Dudhate
                  APP for Respondent-State: Mr. K.S. Patil
            Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Patil Atmaram J.
                                      .....

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

DATED : 12th OCTOBER, 2021

PER COURT:-

1. We have heard learned counsel for the applicants for some

time.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants on instructions, seeks

leave to withdraw the application of applicant No. 1 Mahesh

Punjaram Deore, applicant No.2 Jyoti Punjaram Deore and applicant

No.3 Punjaram Sonu Deore. Leave granted. The application of

applicant No. 1 Mahesh Punjaram Deore, applicant No.2 Jyoti

Punjaram Deore and applicant No.3 Punjaram Sonu Deore is

dismissed as withdrawn.

cran199.20

3. The applicant No.4 Archana is an accused in connection with

crime No. 234 of 2019 registered with Mohadi police station for the

offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of

I.P.C.. During pendency of this application charge sheet has been

submitted and the amendment is carried out for quashing of criminal

proceedings also.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is

sister-in-law and doctor by profession, residing in Mumbai. Learned

counsel submits that the allegations as against her are general in

nature without quoting any specific incident. The learned counsel

submits that allegations have been made mainly against husband,

father-in-law and mother-in-law, whose application seeking quashing

of F.I.R. and criminal proceedings came to be withdrawn today.

Learned counsel submits that this is a case of over implication.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the name

of applicant is mentioned in the F.I.R. with a specific role attributed to

her. Learned counsel submits that the applicant is a divorcee and

she kept her children with her parents. She used to come to her

parents' house to meet her children. Learned counsel submits that

on every such visit, she used to instigate other co-accused persons

to ill-treat respondent No.2-informant for various reasons, including

non fulfillment of demand of certain amount for opening new

company for co-accused husband.

cran199.20

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

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

complaint and also perused the charge sheet. Though the name of

applicant is mentioned in the F.I.R. however, omnibus allegations

have been made against her without quoting any specific incident. It

further appears that the allegations have been made mainly against

co-accused husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law, however, their

application seeking quashing of F.I.R. and criminal proceedings

came to be withdrawn today. The applicant is doctor by profession

residing at Mumbai. It appears that all family members have been

implicated in connection with the present crime. It further appears

that the allegations as against the applicant are absurd in nature.

8. 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 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."

cran199.20

9. 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

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."

10. 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

cran199.20

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 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

cran199.20

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 proceeding can be quashed. In the instant

case, from reading of complaint, even if the allegations are taken as

proved, no case is made out against the applicant. In the aforesaid

case the Supreme court has observed that 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.

12. In view of above and also in terms of ratio laid down by the

Supreme Court in the above cited cases, we proceed to pass the

following order:-

ORDER

I. Criminal application is allowed in terms of prayer clause "B"

and "B-1" to the extent of applicant No.4 Archana Yashwant

Thombare.

 II.        Criminal application is disposed of.



       (SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.)                     (V. K. JADHAV, J.)

 rlj/