Bombay High Court
Saurabh Suryakant Kadam And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 10 March, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
1 cran 1737.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
945 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1737 OF 2021
SAURABH SURYAKANT KADAM AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Applicants : Ms. Kakade (Matkar) Savita
Parmeshwar
APP for Respondent 1 : Mr. R V Dasalkar
Advocate for Respondent 2 : Mr. Bhosale M K
(appointed through Legal Aid)
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV & SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
Dated: March 10, 2022
...
PER COURT :-
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the
applicants for some time. The learned counsel for the
applicants, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw this
criminal application to the extent of applicant no.1, 2, 5
and 7.
2. Leave granted. Application of applicant no.1-
Saurabh s/o Suryakant Kadam (husband of respondent
No.2), 2-Suryakant Laxman Kadam (father-in-law of
respondent no.2), 5-Kiran s/o Suryakant Kadam
(brother-in-law of respondent no.2) and applicant no.-7
aaa/-
2 cran 1737.21.odt
Vinay s/o Chandrakant Santabanavar (Shinde)
(husband of sister-in-law of respondent no.2) is hereby
dismissed as withdrawn.
3. Heard fnally with consent at admission stage.
4. The applicants are seeking quashing of the FIR
bearing crime no.158 of 2021 registered with Police
Station Sadar Bazar, Jalna for the offence punishable
under section 498-A, 354, 354-D, 504, 506, 34 of the
IPC and section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that though
names of the applicants before the Court are mentioned
in the FIR, however, the allegations have been made
mainly against the husband, father-in-law, brother-in-
law and husband of the sister-in-law, whose application
seeking quashing of the FIR came to be withdrawn
today. Though, names of the applicants are mentioned
in the FIR, however, the allegations as against them are
general in nature, without ascribing any specifc
individual role. Learned counsel submits that, the
applicant no.3-is mother-in-law, applicant no.4 is
aaa/-
3 cran 1737.21.odt
brother of father-in-law, applicant no.6 is wife of
brother-in-law and applicant no.8 is married sister-in-
law. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that
there is no triable case against them. It is a case of over
implication.
5. Learned appointed counsel for respondent no.2
submits that, names of the applicants before the Court
are mentioned in the FIR, with the specifc role
attributed to each of them. Respondent no.2 was
treated well for some period after marriage, however, she
was subjected to cruelty by co-accused husband, for
various reasons. Even though respondent no.2 has
complained about the same to the present applicants,
however, they have supported co-accused husband and
ignored her allegations. Learned counsel submits that,
there is a triable case against all the applicants. There
is no substance in the criminal application and the
criminal application is liable to be dismissed.
6. We have also heard the learned APP for the
respondent no.1-State.
aaa/-
4 cran 1737.21.odt
7. We have carefully gone through the contents of the
complaint and also perused the police papers. It
appears that after marriage, in the month of May, 2019
respondent no.2 went to Bangalore for cohabitation with
her husband, however, she was subjected to cruelty by
co-accused husband. She came to know that her
husband had some extra marital relations with one
Jasvir Kaur. There are serious allegations against co-
accused Husband. It further appears that, there are
allegations against co-accused father-in-law, co-accused
husband of the sister-in-law to the extent that they tried
to take undue advantage of her alleged ill-treatment at
the hands of co-accused husband and tried to develop
the relations with her. Though, respondent no.2 has
not given any heed to their attempts, however, they have
exhausted all the opportunities to touch inappropriately
with some ulterior motive. So far as the applicants
before this Court are concerned, allegations against
them are absurd in nature.
aaa/-
5 cran 1737.21.odt
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 "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."
9. 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
aaa/-
6 cran 1737.21.odt
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".
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 :-
aaa/-
7 cran 1737.21.odt
"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 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
aaa/-
8 cran 1737.21.odt
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."
11. It is well settled that, if the allegations are absurd
and no case is made out, the proceedings are liable to
be quashed.
In the instant case, even if the allegations as
against the applicants are held to be proved, no case is
made out. There is no triable case against them. It is a
case of over implication.
12. Thus, considering the entire aspect of the case
and in view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court
in the above cited cases, we proceed to pass the
following order.
aaa/-
9 cran 1737.21.odt
ORDER
1. Criminal Application is hereby allowed in terms
of prayer Clause "B" as against the applicants
before us.
2. Criminal Application accordingly disposed off.
3. Since Advocate Mr. M K Bhosale is appointed to
represent 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/-
