Bombay High Court

Vipin Chandrakant Solankhi And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 25 October, 2021

Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More

                                                   51-CriAppln-1625-2021
                                    -1-

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD
               51 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1625 OF 2021

 1.       Vipin Chandrakant Solankhi
 2.       Chandrakant Rajaram Solankhi
 3.       Shobhabai Chandrakant Solankhi
 4.       Simran Chandrakant Solankhi
 5.       Sayjabai Budha Chavan
 6.       Vijay Budha Chavan
 7.       Minakshi Vijay Chavan
 8.       Shantaram Sukhalal Sonwane
          @ Dhondu Bhagat                           ... Applicants
                  versus
          The State of Maharashtra and another      ... Respondents

                                  .....
              Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Choudhari N. L.
           APP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. R. V. Dasalkar
          Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Anudeep D. Sonar
                                   .....

                               CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
                                       SANDIPKUMAR. C. MORE, JJ.

DATED : 25th OCTOBER, 2021

PER COURT:-

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

leave to withdraw the application of applicant no.2 Chandrakant

Rajaram Solankhi. Learned counsel counsel submits that the

application of applicant nos. 1 and 3 is already withdrawn. Leave

granted. The application of applicant no.2 Chandrakant Rajaram

Solankhi is dismissed as withdrawn.

51-CriAppln-1625-2021

2. Applicant nos. 4 to 8 are seeking quashing of the FIR in crime

no. 396 of 2021 registered with Dhule Taluka Police Station,

Dhule, District Dhule for the offences punishable under Sections

498-A, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that though

names of applicant nos. 4 to 8 are mentioned in the FIR, however

the allegations as against them are general in nature and no

specific incidents have been quoted against them. Learned counsel

submits that it is a case of over-implication and almost all the

family members, including the distant relatives, came to be

implicated in connection with the present crime. Learned counsel

submits that applicant no.4 is the sister-in-law of respondent no.2

and she is taking education. Application no.5 is the grandmother-

in-law of respondent no.2. Applicant no.6 is the maternal uncle of

co-accused Shobhabai and applicant no.7 is the maternal aunt of

co-accused Shobhabai.

4. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that names of

all the applicants are mentioned in the FIR with a specific role

attributed to each of them. It has been specifically alleged in the

51-CriAppln-1625-2021

complaint that they have subjected respondent no.2-informant to

cruelty and also instigated the other co-accused persons for

subjecting her to harassment for various reasons.

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

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

complaint so also the police papers. Though we find names of the

applicants mentioned in the FIR, however the allegations as against

them are general in nature. Applicant nos. 5 to 8 are related to

accused no.3 Shobhabai. Applicant no.4 is the sister-in-law of

respondent no.2 and at present she is taking education. It is a

classic example of over-implication and not only all the family

members have been implicated in connection with the present

crime, but the distant relatives are also not spared.

7. 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

51-CriAppln-1625-2021

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."

8. 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

51-CriAppln-1625-2021

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".

9. 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

51-CriAppln-1625-2021

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 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

51-CriAppln-1625-2021

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."

10. In the instant case, the allegations as against applicant nos. 4

to 8 are general in nature. From a reading of the complaint and

even if the allegations as against applicant nos. 4 to 8 are taken as

proved, no case is made out against them. 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, considering the

allegations made in the complaint, it appears that no triable case is

made out against the applicants-accused. Thus, considering the

entire aspect of the case and in terms of the ratio laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited cases, we are inclined to

quash the FIR as against applicant nos. 4 to 8. Hence, we proceed

to pass the following order.