Laxmikant Kachru Kahar And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3783 Bom

                                      (1)
                                                   985 criappln-1004.2021.odt

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

            985 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1004 OF 2021


 1.       Laxmikant Kachru Kahar
 2.       Kachru Laxman Kahar
 3.       Vimal Kachru Kahar
 4.       Sindhu Balasaheb Pandore
 5.       Shaila Rajendra Pandore
 6.       Sarla Sharad Gangule
 7.       Rani Kachru Kahar
 8.       Priyanka Balasaheb Pandure                             Applicants.
                  Versus
 1.       State of Maharashtra
 2.       Radhika Laxmikant Kahar                                Respondents


                                      ...
 Mr.   K.M. Shermale, Advocate holding for
 Mr.   Yogesh Jadhav, Advocate for the applicants.
 Mr.   S.S. Dande, A.P.P. for respondent No. 1- State.
 Mr.   S.B. Wakhare, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
                                  ...

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

DATED : 7th April 2022.

P.C. :

1. Leave to insert Section 377 of the Indian Penal

Code in prayer clause [B] alongwith other sections.

985 criappln-1004.2021.odt

2. Heard fnally with consent at the admission stage.

3. Learned Counsel for the applicants, on

instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the application of

applicant Nos.1 to 3.

4. Leave granted.

5. Application of applicant No.1 Laxmikant Kachru

Kahar (husband of respondent No.2.), applicant No.2 Kachru

Laxman Kahar (father-in-law of respondent No.2) and

applicant No. 3 Vimal Kachru Kahar (mother-in-law of

respondent No.2) is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.

6. The applicants before us are seeking quashing of

the F.I.R. bearing Crime No.55 of 2021 registered with Loni

Police Station, Taluka Rahata, District Ahmednagar for the

offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 354,

504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that

applicant Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 are the married sisters-in-law of

respondent No.2. They are residing at different places

alongwith their respective husbands. Applicant No.8 is the

985 criappln-1004.2021.odt

daughter of applicant No. 4 Sindhu. Learned Counsel

submits that though there are allegations against them by

referring the incident alleged occurred on 06.06.2017,

however, those allegations prima facie do not attract the

provisions of Section 498-A of I.P.C. Learned Counsel

submits that the allegations have been made mainly against

co-accused husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law whose

application seeking quashing of F.I.R. came to be withdrawn

today. Learned Counsel submits that even in respect of the

incident dated 06.06.2017, the allegations appears to be

general in nature. It is not clear from the allegations as to

why all the sisters-in-law had come to their parents house on

06.06.2017. Learned Counsel submits that further there is

no reference as to what happened till 11.11.2019. Learned

Counsel submits that even after the alleged incident dated

06.06.2017 and thereafter also the allegations have been

made mainly against the co-accused husband, father-in-law

and mother-in-law. Learned Counsel for the applicants

submits that on the similar set of allegations the learned

Single Judge of this Court has quashed the proceedings

under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act to the extent of

the applicants before this Court excluding the husband,

mother-in-law and father-in-law.

985 criappln-1004.2021.odt

8. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 - informant

submits that respondent No. 2 was treated well for a period of

8 days after the marriage which was solemnized on

21.11.2016. Thereafter she was subjected to ill-treatment on

account of non-fulfllment of the demand of Rs. 25,00,000/-

for construction of Farm House. Learned Counsel submits

that even father of respondent No. 2 had paid certain amount

to co-accused husband to fulfll the said demand partly.

Learned Counsel submits that even the co-accused father-in-

law has misbehaved with respondent No.2- informant on one

occasion. Learned Counsel submits that the co-accused

husband despite his marriage with respondent No.2, has

registered his name in one Marriage Bureau and tried to

cheat one girl by name Amita Dongre from Raipur,

Chhattisgarh State. Learned Counsel submits that the

allegations as against the applicants are serious in nature.

There is a triable case against all of them. There is no

substance in this criminal application and the same is liable

to be dismissed.

9. We have heard learned A.P.P. for the respondent

No.1 - State.

985 criappln-1004.2021.odt

10. We have carefully gone through the contents of

complaint and also perused the police papers. It appears that

except the incident dated 06.06.2017, there are no allegations

against these applicants. Applicant Nos.4 to 7, aged 46 years,

40 years, 46 years and 39 years respectively, are the married

sisters-in-law of respondent No.2. Though there are certain

allegations in respect of the incident allegedly occurred on

06.06.2017, however, the said incident is the sole incident

wherein certain allegations have been made against these

applicants which do not attract even the ingredients of

Section 498-A of I.P.C. It further appears that the allegations

have been made mainly against the co-accused, husband,

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

quashing of F.I.R. came to be withdrawn. So far as applicant

No.8 is concerned, she is daughter of applicant No.4.

Applicant Nos.4 to 8 are residing at different places.

11. In the case of Taramani Parakh v. State of Madhya

Pradesh and others, reported in (2015) 11 SCC 260, in para

10 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

985 criappln-1004.2021.odt

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 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

985 criappln-1004.2021.odt

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 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."

12. It is well settled that if the allegations are absurd

and do not make out any case, the F.I.R. / proceedings are

liable to be quashed. In the instant case, even if the

allegations made against the applicants before us are held to

be proved, no case is made out. Further more, it is a case of

over-implication. All the family members including married

985 criappln-1004.2021.odt

sisters-in-law and the daughter of sister-in-law have been

implicated in connection with the crime. In view of the same,

continuation of the proceedings against them would be an

abuse of the process of the Court.

13. In view of the above and in terms of the ratio laid

down by the Supreme Court in the above-cited case, we

proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

(I) Criminal Application is hereby allowed in terms of prayer clause [B] to the extent of applicant Nos.4 to 8.

(ii) Criminal Applicant is accordingly disposed of.

(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (V.K. JADHAV, J.)

VD_Dhirde