Bombay High Court
Sunil Popatrao Patil And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 19 January, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
(1)
979 criappln-718.2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
979 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.718 OF 2021
SUNIL POPATRAO PATIL AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHER
...
Mr. N.L. Choudhari, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. S.P. Sonpawale, A.P.P. for respondent No. 1 - State.
Mr. S.U. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV AND
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
DATE : 19-01-2022.
ORDER :
1. Learned Counsel for the applicants, on
instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the application of
applicant Nos. 1 to 3.
2. Leave granted.
3. The application of applicant No. 1 Sunil Popatrao
Patil (husband of respondent No. 2), applicant No. 2 Kokilabai
Popatrao Patil (mother-in-law of respondent No. 2) and
applicant No. 3 Pravin Popatrao Patil (brother-in-law of
respondent No. 2) is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.
4. The applicants / original accused are seeking
quashing of F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 264/2020 registered
979 criappln-718.2021.odt
with Shirpur City Police Station, Shirpur, District Dhule for
the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 504, 506,
323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code and also
seeking quashing of the proceedings vide R.C.C. No. 83/2021
pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at
Shirpur, District Dhule.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that
the allegations as against these applicants are general in
nature without quoting any specifc incident. Applicant
Manisha is the sister in law and applicant Dilip is brother-in-
law of respondent No. 2. Applicants Rekha and Usha are also
sisters-in-law, aged 50 years and 64 years respectively.
Applicant Prsahant is the son of applicant Usha. It is a case
of over implication.
6. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 - informant
submits that the marriage had taken place on 27.02.2000.
However, respondent No. 2 - informant was subjected to ill-
treatment on account of non-fulfllment of demand of certain
amount. Learned Counsel submits that even in the year
2012, father of respondent No. 2 had purchased one house for
co-accused husband by paying an amount of Rs. 4,10,000/-.
Learned Counsel submits that the respondent No. 2 was
979 criappln-718.2021.odt
subjected to cruelty for various reasons. Names of the
present applicants are mentioned in the F.I.R. with specifc
role attributed to each of them. There is no substance in this
application. Hence, the application is liable to be dismissed.
7. We also heard learned A.P.P. for respondent No. 1-
State.
8. We have carefully gone through the contents of the
complaint, so also the charge-sheet. It appears that the
allegations have been made mainly against the co-accused
husband, mother-in-law and elder brother of co-accused
husband namely Pravin whose application seeking quashing
of the proceedings, came to be withdrawn. So far as the
applicants before us are concerned, the allegations as against
them are general in nature without quoting any specifc
individual incident. Applicants Usha and Prashant are
private Medical Practitioners and applicant Rekha is residing
at Kurukvade, Taluka Shindkheda, District Dhule. Applicant
Rekha, applicant Usha and applicant Prashant are more than
50 years of age. Applicant Dilip i.e. the brother-in-law is 63
years of age. It appears to be a case of over implication since
almost all the family members have been implicated in
connection with the present crime.
979 criappln-718.2021.odt
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".
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.
979 criappln-718.2021.odt
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:
"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.
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
979 criappln-718.2021.odt
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 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 proceedings are liable to
be quashed. In the instant case, the allegations as against
these applicants are general in nature without quoting any
979 criappln-718.2021.odt
specifc individual incident. Even if those allegations are
taken as proved, no case is made out against them. 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) Criminal Application is hereby allowed in
terms of praye clause "B" and "B-1" to the
extent of applicants Manisha Pravin Patil,
Dilip Shriram Sonwane, Rekha Dilip Sonwane
Usha Ravindra Patil and Prashant Ravindra
Patil.
(ii) Criminal Application is accordingly disposed of.
(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (V.K. JADHAV, J.)
VD_Dhirde
