Manoj S/O. Uttam Mhaske And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 465 Bom

                                       {1}
                                                           crappln1381.20.odt

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

               CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1381 OF 2020

 01 Manoj s/o Uttam Mhaske;

 02 Pramilabai w/o Uttam Mhaske;

 03 Uttam s/o Pundlik Mhaske;

 04 Vishal s/o Uttam Mhaske;

 05 Pradnya w/o Vishal Mhaske;

 06 Deepali w/o Rahul Jadhav;

 07 Rahul s/o Pralhad Jadhav                          Applicants

          Versus

 01 The State of Maharashtra

 02 Jayshree w/o Manoj Mhaske                         Respondents



 Mr. Prakashsing B. Patil, advocate for the applicants
 Mr. S. D. Ghayal, APP for Respondent No.1.
 Mr. S. N. Pagare, advocate for Respondent No.2.


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

DATE : 13th January, 2022.

PC :

{2} crappln1381.20.odt

1 Leave to correct First Information Report number.

2 Learned Counsel for the applicants, on

instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the application of

applicants no. 1 to 5.

3 Leave granted. Application of applicant no.1 -

Manoj Uttam Mhaske, applicant no.2 - Pramilabai Uttam

Mhaske, applicant no.3- Uttam s/o Pundlik Mhaske,

applicant no.4 - Vishal Uttam Mhaske and applicant no.5 -

Pradnya w/o Vishal Mhaske, is hereby dismissed as

withdrawn.

4 This application is heard fnally with consent of

learned Counsel for respective parties at the stage of

admission.

5 Applicants are seeking quashing of the First

Information Report in connection with Crime No. 89/2020,

registered with Dhule Taluka Police Station, for the offences

{3} crappln1381.20.odt

punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also the Criminal

Proceedings bearing RCC No.433/2020, pending before the

learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule.

6 Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that

applicant no.6 is the married sister-in-law of Respondent No.2

and applicant no.7 is her husband. They are residing at

Sakora, whereas, matrimonial house of Respondent No.2 is

situated at Manmad, Tq. Nandgaon, District Nasik. The

learned Counsel submits that though names of applicants

no.6 and 7 are mentioned in the First Information Report,

however, allegations as against them are general in nature

without attributing any specifc role to them. This is the case

of over implication and almost all the family members have

been implicated in connection with the said crime. The

learned Counsel submits that the co-accused persons,

against whom allegations have been mainly made, have

withdrawn their application seeking quashing of the FIR and

criminal proceedings.

{4} crappln1381.20.odt

7 Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 submits

that names of applicants no. 6 and 7 are mentioned in the

First Information Report with the specifc role attributed to

them. There is a triable case against both the applicants.

There is no substance in the present application and the

same is liable to be dismissed.

8 We have also heard learned A. P. P. for the

Respondent-State.

9 We have carefully gone through the contents of the

complaint and also perused the charge sheet. Though we fnd

names of applicants no. 6 and 7 in the complaint, however,

allegations against them are vague and absurd. It further

appears that though their names are mentioned in the

complaint, no specifc incidents are quoted.

10 In the case of Gita Mehrotra and others v. State of

U.P. and others, reported in AIR 2013 SC 181, the Supreme

{5} crappln1381.20.odt

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."

11 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

{6} crappln1381.20.odt

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".

12 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 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

{7} crappln1381.20.odt

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

{8} crappln1381.20.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."

13 It is well settled that if the allegations are absurd

or do not make out any case, the proceedings are liable to be

quashed. In the instant case, even accepting the charge sheet

as it is and even if the allegations made in the complaint are

{9} crappln1381.20.odt

taken as proved, no case is made out against applicants no.6

and 7. There is no triable case as against applicants no. 6

and 7.

14 In view of the above discussion and in terms of the

ratio laid down in the afore-cited cases, we proceed to pass

the following order:

15 Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer

clause "B" and "B-1", to the extent of applicant no.6 - Deepali

w/o Pralhad Jadhav and applicant no.7 - Rahul s/o Pralhad

Jadhav.

16 Criminal Application is accordingly disposed of.

  (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)                       (V. K. JADHAV)
      JUDGE                                      JUDGE

 adb