Bombay High Court
Anil Kishanrao Chavhan And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 2 March, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
1 cran 735.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
948 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.735 OF 2021
ANIL KISHANRAO CHAVHAN AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Bora Satyajit S.
APP for Respondents : Mr. R V Dasalkar
Advocate for Respondent 2 : Mr. Rohit Patwardhan
(appointed)
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV & SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
Dated: March 02, 2022
...
PER COURT :-
1. Leave to add number of the pending case and
name of the Court in the prayer clause. Addition be
carried out forthwith.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the
applicant for some.
3. The learned counsel for the applicants, on
instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the application of
applicant no.1.
4. Leave granted.
aaa/-
2 cran 735.21.odt
5. Application of applicant no.1 Anil Kishanrao
Chavan (husband of respondent no.2) is hereby
dismissed as withdrawn.
6. Heard fnally with consent at admission stage.
7. The applicants are seeking quashing of the FIR
bearing Crime No.122 of 2020 registered with Manatha
Police Station, District Nanded for the offence
punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 34 of
the IPC and also seeking quashing of the proceedings
bearing RCC No.55 of 2021 pending before the JMFC,
Hadgaon.
8. The learned counsel for the applicants submits
that the allegations have been made mainly against co-
accused husband Anil, whose application seeking
quashing of the proceedings came to be withdrawn
today. Learned counsel submits that though names of
the applicants are mentioned in the FIR, however,
allegations as against them are general and absurd in
nature. Learned counsel submits that the applicant
aaa/-
3 cran 735.21.odt
nos.2 and 3, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law
respectively are the aged persons, applicant no.4 is the
brother in law, applicant no.5 and 6 are the married
sister-in-law residing at different places and applicant
no.7 is the husband of applicant no.6. Learned counsel
submits that though their names are mentioned in the
complaint, however, no specifc role has been attributed
to them by quoting any incident.
9. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that
names of the applicants are mentioned in the FIR. Even
though allegations have been made against co-accused
husband, however, present applicants allegedly
instigated him for extending cruelty to respondent no.2/
informant. There is a triable case against all the
applicants. There is no substance in this application
and the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. We have also heard the learned APP for the
respondent no.1-Sate.
aaa/-
4 cran 735.21.odt
11. We have carefully gone through the contents of the
complaint and also perused the charge-sheet. It appears
that the allegations have been made mainly against co-
accused husband whose application seeking quashing
of the FIR came to be withdrawn today. Though we fnd
names of the applicants are mentioned in the FIR,
however, allegations as against them are general in
nature. It is a case of over implication. Almost all the
family members have been implicated in connection with
the crime, including the married sister-in-law and even
husband of one of the married sister-in-law is also not
spared. Applicant no.5 married sister-in-law resides at
Nanded, where as applicant no.6, who is another
married sister-in-law resides at Basmat, District Hingoli.
Allegations as against them are absurd in nature.
12. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra and others Vs.
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
aaa/-
5 cran 735.21.odt
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."
13. 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
aaa/-
6 cran 735.21.odt
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".
14. 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
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. .....
aaa/-
7 cran 735.21.odt
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 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
aaa/-
8 cran 735.21.odt
settled principles, it cannot be held that there
is no triable case against the accused."
15. Learned counsel for the applicants has also placed
his reliance on a judgment in the case of Kahkashan
Kausar @ Sonam and ors Vs. State of Bihar and
others in Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2022 (arising out of
SLP (Cri) No.6545 of 2020), wherein the Supreme Court
in paragraph nos.18 and 19 has made following
observations :-
18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this
court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the
misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of
implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes,
without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the
complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from
the said judgments that false implication by way of general
omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial
dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process
of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has
warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-
laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out
against them.
19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents
of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general
allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The
complainant alleged that 'all accused harassed her mentally
and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy'.
Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been
made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the
Appellants have been attributed any specific role in
furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This
simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the
role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The
allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best
be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes.
Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed
against the order of the High court, we have not examined the
aaa/-
9 cran 735.21.odt
veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as
the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against
them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.
16. It is well settled that if the allegations are absurd
in nature and no case is made out, then proceedings are
liable to be quashed.
17. In the instant case, allegations as against the
applicants are held to be proved, no case is made out. It
is a case of over implication. There is no triable case
against all the applicants. In view of the same,
continuation of the proceedings would be the abuse of
the process of the Court.
18. 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 allowed in terms of
prayer clause "C" and "C-1" to the extent of the
applicants before us.
ii. Criminal application accordingly disposed off.
aaa/-
10 cran 735.21.odt
iii. Since Advocate Mr. Rohit Patwardhan is
appointed to represent the cause of respondent
no.2, we quantify his legal fees and expenses @
Rs.2,000/- (Rs. Two Thousand) to be paid by
the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee,
Aurangabad.
( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. ) ( V.K. JADHAV, J. )
...
aaa/-
