Nitin S/O. Ganpat Kshirsagar And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 1174 Bom

                                                      944-CriAppln-3583-2019
                                     -1-

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

               944 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3583 OF 2019

               NITIN S/O. GANPAT KSHIRSAGAR AND OTHERS
                                   VERSUS
               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                     .....
                Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Shirsat Suhas R.
               APP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. S. S. Dande
                Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. V. Y. Bhide
                                     .....

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

DATED : 02nd FEBRUARY, 2022

PER COURT:-

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

to withdraw the application of applicant nos. 1 and 2. Leave granted.

The application of applicant no.1 Nitin s/o Ganpat Kshirsagar

(husband of respondent no.2) and applicant no.2 Mandakini w/o

Ganpat Kshirsagar (mother-in-law of respondent no.2) is hereby

dismissed as withdrawn.

2. Leave to amend the prayer clause to insert the case number

which is pending before the Magistrate.

3. Heard finally with consent at admission stage.

944-CriAppln-3583-2019

4. The applicant-original accused Shailesh s/o Ganpat Kshirsagar

and applicant-original accused Sonam w/o Shailesh Kshirsagar are

seeking quashing of the FIR vide crime no. 144/2019 registered at

Akole Police Station, Akole, District Ahmednagar for the offence

punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC

and also seeking quashing of the proceedings bearing R.C.C. No.

7/2020 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akole.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant no.3

is the brother-in-law and applicant no.4 is his wife. Though their

names are mentioned in the FIR, however, the allegations as against

them are general in nature. Learned counsel submits that the

allegations have been made mainly against co-accused Nitin (husband

of respondent no.2) and co-accused Mandakini (mother-in-law of

respondent no.2), whose application seeking quashing of the

proceedings came to be withdrawn today. Learned counsel submits

that though certain instances are quoted, however, no specific

individual role is ascribed to the present applicants and general

allegations have been made against them by referring their names

along with co-accused persons. Learned counsel submits that it is a

case of over-implication and all the family members have been

944-CriAppln-3583-2019

implicated in connection with the crime.

6. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that respondent

no.2 got married with co-accused Nitin way back in the year 2013.

She was treated well for the initial period of three years. However,

thereafter she was subjected to ill-treatment on account of non-

fulfillment of demand of Rupees five lakh for the purpose of

purchasing a flat. Learned counsel submits that there are allegations

against these applicants that they have also joined the other co-

accused persons to make demand of the said amount and also

subjected respondent no.2 to cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of

the said demand. Furthermore, as per the allegations made in the

complaint, the applicants all the while were subjecting respondent

no.2 to scolding, abuses and beating. Moreover, they used to instigate

co-accused persons and as a result thereof, respondent no.2 was

subjected to beating by the co-accused persons. Learned counsel

submits that there is a triable case against these applicants. There is

no substance in this criminal application and the same is liable to be

dismissed.

7. We have also heard learned APP for the respondent State.

944-CriAppln-3583-2019

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

complaint so also perused the charge-sheet. It appears that the

allegations have been made mainly against co-accused husband and

mother-in-law, whose application seeking quashing of the

proceedings came to be withdrawn today. Though names of the

applicants are mentioned in the complaint, however, the allegations

as against them are general in nature without quoting any specific

incident or ascribing any specific individual role.

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."

944-CriAppln-3583-2019

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 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:

944-CriAppln-3583-2019

"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 matrimonial home. The question whether the appellant has in fact been harassed and treated with cruelty is a matter of trial but at this

944-CriAppln-3583-2019

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."

944-CriAppln-3583-2019

12. In the instant case, the allegations as against the applicants are

absurd in nature. It is well settled that if the allegations are absurd

and no case is made out, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

Even though the allegations made against these applicants are held to

be proved, no case is made out. In view of the same, continuation of

the proceedings against these applicants would be an abuse of the

court process. There is no triable case against these applicants.

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

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

following order:

ORDER

I. The criminal application is hereby allowed in terms of prayer

clauses (B) and (B-1) to the extent of applicant nos. 3 and 4.

II. The criminal application is accordingly disposed off.

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