Jalindar S/O Subhash Jagtap And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 14967 Bom

                                      1
                                                      Cri.Appln.2134-2020

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 938 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2134 OF 2020


1.     Jalindar s/o Subhash Jagtap,
       Age 28 years, Occu. Agri.,
       R/o Sarla Govardhan, Shrirampur,
       Taluka Shrirampur,
       District Ahmednagar

2.     Somnath s/o Subhash Jagtap,
       Age 38 years, Occu. Service,
       R/o Sarla Govardhan, Shrirampur,
       Taluka Shrirampur,
       District Ahmednagar,
       at present r/o Flat No.202,
       Balaji Towers, Keshavapuri Colony,
       Central Grammar High School Lane,
       Hastipuram North, Hyderabad,
       Telangana State 500 079

3.     Pushpa w/o Nanasaheb Jagtap,
       Age 52 years, Occu. Household,
       R/o Sarla Govardhan, Shrirampur,
       Taluka Shrirampur,
       District Ahmednagar                                  ..Applicants

               Versus

1.     The State of Maharashtra,
       Through Police Inspector,
       Shrirampur Taluka Police Station,
       Taluka Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar

2.     Kajal w/o Jalindar Jagtap,
       Age 25 years, Occu. Household,
       R/o Sarla Govardhan, Shrirampur,
       District Ahmednagar,
       at present r/o Behind Nimbalkar
       Hospital, Gajanan Colony,
       Navanagapur, Taluka and
       District Ahmednagar                                  ..Respondents


Mr R.R. Karpe, Advocate, for applicants
Mr G.O. Wattamwar, A.P.P. for respondent no.1-State
Mr Satej S. Jadhav, Advocate for respondent no.2




 ::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2021                 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2021 05:22:44 :::
                                              2
                                                              Cri.Appln.2134-2020


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

DATE : 13th October 2021 PER COURT :

1. By consent, heard finally at admission stage.

2. The learned Counsel for the applicants, on instructions, seeks leave to

withdraw the application of applicant no.1 - Jalindar s/o Subhash Jagtap.

3. Leave granted. Application of applicant no.1 - Jalindar s/o Subhash

Jagtap is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.

4. The applicants are the accused persons in connection with Crime

No.34/2020, registered with Shrirampur Police Station, for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. At

present, the investigation is completed and the charge-sheet has been

submitted.

5. The case bearing R.C.C. No.644/2020 is pending before the Judicial

Magistrate, First Class, Shrirampur. The applicants are seeking quashing of

the F.I.R., so also the criminal proceedings by filing present criminal

application.

6. The learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the allegations have

been made mainly against co-accused/husband whose application seeking

quashing of the criminal proceedings came to be withdrawn. The learned

Counsel submits that names of the applicants are mentioned in the F.I.R.,

however, the allegations are general in nature without quoting any specific

Cri.Appln.2134-2020

incident. The learned Counsel submits that applicant no.2 - Somnath is serving

as Engineer and since 1998 residing at Hyderabad also in State of Karnataka

as per the demand of his job profile. The learned Counsel submits that

applicant no.3 - Pushpa is the cousin mother-in-law, who resides separately

with her family members. It is the case of over-implication and almost all the

family members have been implicated in the present crime. The learned

Counsel submits that nothing specific has been revealed against the applicants

during the course of investigation.

7. Learned Counsel for respondent no.2/informant submits that the names

of the applicants are mentioned in the F.I.R. with a specific role attributed to

them. There are specific allegations that they used to keep the informant on

starvation and so also used to beat her on account of non-fulfillment of certain

demand. The learned Counsel submits that applicant no.3 - Pushpa resides in

the same village and she used to come to the matrimonial home of respondent

no.2/informant. The applicants used to instigate the co-accused/husband of

respondent no.2 and as a result thereof, the co-accused/husband not only

subjected respondent no.2 to cruelty, but also started suspecting about her

character.

8. We have carefully gone through the allegations made in the complaint,

so also the charge-sheet. Though we find the names of the applicants

mentioned in the F.I.R., however, omnibus allegations have been made against

them. It further appears that the allegations against them are general in nature

without quoting any specific incident. It also appears that the allegations have

been made mainly against co-accused/husband whose application seeking

quashing of the criminal proceedings came to be withdrawn. Even, nothing has

Cri.Appln.2134-2020

been revealed during the investigation as against the applicants. Thus, the

allegations made against them are absurd in nature. Applicant no.2 - Somnath

resides at different place, even in a different State right from the year 1998. It

is merely alleged in the complaint that applicant no.2 used to keep respondent

no.2 on starvation and used to beat her, however, no specific incident has been

quoted. So far as applicant no.3 is concerned, she is cousin mother-in-law,

admittedly residing with her own family members. The allegations as against

her are also general in nature without quoting any specific incident.

9. 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."

10. 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

Cri.Appln.2134-2020

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".

11. 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 apprehends lack of security and safety and proper environment in the

Cri.Appln.2134-2020

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 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."

12. It is well settled that the allegations are absurd and do not make out any

case, the proceedings can be quashed. In a 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. Thus,

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

no case is made out against the applicants. There is no triable case against

Cri.Appln.2134-2020

them. Thus, considering the entire aspects of the case and the ratio laid down

by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, we are inclined to

quash the F.I.R. and criminal proceedings as against applicants no.2 and 3.

Hence, we proceed to pass the following order :

ORDER

(I) Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (B) and (B-1) to the extent of applicant no.2 - Somnath s/o Subhash Jagtap and applicant no.3 - Pushpa w/o Nanasaheb Jagtap.

(II) Criminal Application is accordingly disposed of.

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


vvr