Bombay High Court

Prashant Trimbakrao Helgire And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 16 March, 2022

Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More

cran2396.20
-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

965 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2396 OF 2020

PRASHANT TRIMBAKRAO HELGIRE AND ANR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
.....
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Umakant B. Deshmukh
APP for Respondent-State: Mr. M. M. Nerlikar
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. V. V. Bhavthankar
.....

CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
SANDIPKUMAR. C. MORE, JJ.
DATED : 16th MARCH, 2022

PER COURT:-

1. By consent of the parties, heard finally at admission.

2. The applicants-accused are seeking quashing of F.I.R. bearing

No.450 of 2020 registered with Shivajinagar Police Station, Nanded

for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 506 r.w. 34 of

I.P.C. and also seeking quashing of the proceeding vide R.C.C. No.

154 of 2021 pending before the J.M.F.C. Nanded.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant

No.1 is brother-in-law of respondent No.2 and applicant No.2 is the

wife of applicant No.1. Though their names are mentioned in the

F.I.R., however, the allegations as against them are general and

absurd in nature. Learned counsel submits that the allegations have

been made mainly against husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law

::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2022 07:20:55 :::
cran2396.20
-2-

and the present applicants have been implicated in connection with

the crime only for the reason that they are members of the family. It's

a case of over implication.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the

respondent No.2 got married with co-accused husband in the year

2003. Right from the date of marriage till the year 2019, she was

subjected to ill-treatment on account of non fulfillment of certain

demands. Learned counsel submits that the allegations have been

made against the applicants and co-accused persons. The

respondent No.2 was subjected to ill-treatment and beating on

account of non fulfillment of said demand of Rs.2,00,000/-. There is

no substance in this criminal application and the same is liable to be

dismissed.

5. We have also heard learned A.P.P. for the respondent State.

6. We have carefully gone through the contents of the complaint

and also perused the charge sheet. It appears that respondent No.2

Jyoti got married with co-accused husband way back in the year

2003. It is alleged in the complaint that she was treated well for

some period, however, after the year 2005, she was subjected to ill-

treatment on account of non fulfillment of demand of Rs.2,00,000/-

and the said ill-treatment remained continued till the year 2019.

Though we find names of the applicants mentioned in the F.I.R.

::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2022 07:20:55 :::
cran2396.20
-3-

however, the allegations as against them are general in nature

without quoting any specific incident, as such.

7. 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 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."

8. 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

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

::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2022 07:20:55 :::
cran2396.20
-4-

more precisely but he is no more and has already expired. Under such

circumstances, it would be an abuse of 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."

9. 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 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 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
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

::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2022 07:20:55 :::
cran2396.20
-5-

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 different from the said cases. Applying the
settled principles, it cannot be held that there is no triable case
against the accused."

10. It is thus clear that if the allegations are absurd and do not

make out any case the proceedings are liable to be quashed. In the

instant case, even if the allegations as against these applicants are

held to be proved, no case is made out against them. In view of the

same, the continuation of the proceedings as against these

applicants would be an abuse of process of law.

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

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

following order:-

::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2022 07:20:55 :::
cran2396.20
-6-

ORDER

I) Criminal application is allowed in terms of prayer clause "B"