Bombay High Court

Priyanka Gangadhar Narwade And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 5 January, 2022

Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More

                                     1               950 application 1750-21

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                950 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1750 OF 2021

          PRIYANKA GANGADHAR NARWADE AND OTHERS
                               VERSUS
            THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                   ...
     Advocate for Applicants : Mr. D. J. Patil, h/f Mr. M. P. Bhaskar
         APP for Respondent no.1-State: Mr. R. V. Dasalkar
          Advocate for Respondent no.2 : Mr. S. J. Salunke
                                   ....

                                    CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
                                            SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
                                    DATED : 5th JANUARY, 2022.
                                            ....



ORDER :

1. By consent of the parties, heard fnally at admission stage.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that charge

sheet has been submitted excluding applicant no.2 Pramod, no.4

Jyoti and no.5 Sunita. In view of the same, if no charge sheet

has been submitted against them, their application seeking

quashing of the proceeding stands disposed of.

3. In so far as other applicants i.e. applicant Nos. 1, 3 and 6

are concerned, they are seeking quashing of the FIR bearing

Crime No. 196 of 2021, registered with Chandanzeera Police

Station, District Jalna for the ofence punishable under Sections

2 950 application 1750-21

498A, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and also seeking

quashing of the proceeding bearing RCC No. 1112 of 2021,

pending before Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Jalna.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that though the

names of applicants are mentioned in the FIR, the allegations as

against them are only to the extent that they have instigated co-

accused for extending ill-treatment to respondent no.2 for

various reasons. Learned counsel submits that however,

applicant no.1 Priyanka is the sister-in-law of respondent no.2.

In the year 2020, she was selected as a Tax Assistant and before

that she was working as a clerk in the Civil Court at Vaijapur. So

far as applicant no.3- Milind and applicant no.6-Chandrakant are

concerned, they are maternal uncles of husband of respondent

no.2 and the allegations as against them are absurd in nature.

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

5. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that though

applicant no.1 Priyanka is sister-in-law, was serving as a clerk in

the Civil Court at Vaijapur, however, due to the lock-down, she

was residing in his parents house at Aurangabad and after due

investigation, charge sheet has also been fled against her.

Learned counsel submits that the names of applicant nos. 3 and

3 950 application 1750-21

4 are also mentioned in the FIR with specifc role attributed to

each of them. There is a triable case against them. No case is

made out for quashing. Criminal application is thus liable to be

dismissed.

6. We have also heard the learned APP for respondent no.1-

State.

7. On going through the allegations made in the complaint

and the charge sheet, though we fnd the names of the

applicants are mentioned in the FIR, however, the allegations as

against them are absurd. There are vague allegations about the

instigation without attributing any specifc role. It further

appears that the allegations have been made mainly against co-

accused husband, father-in-law, who are not before us as the

applicants. It is a case of over-implication. The applicant no.1

Priyanka was initially serving as a clerk in Civil Court at Vaijapur

and thereafter selected as a Tax Assistant and posted at

Malegaon, District Nashik.

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

4 950 application 1750-21

cautious approach in matters of quashing specially in cases of

matrimonial dispute whether the FIR in fact discloses

commission of an ofence 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."

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 ofence committed by each and

every accused and the role played by each and every accused in

committing of that ofence. The complaint in the instant case is

sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has

committed what ofence and what is the exact role played by

these appellants in the commission of ofence. 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

5 950 application 1750-21

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 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 afairs 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

6 950 application 1750-21

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 matrix is diferent 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 vague in nature,

criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. In the instant

7 950 application 1750-21

case, the allegations as made against present applicants are

even if held to be proved, no case is made out. There is no

triable case against the applicants. It is a case of over

implication.

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

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

following order.

ORDER

I) Criminal Application is allowed in terms of