Bombay High Court

Sayyad Nuroddin Sayyad ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 30 March, 2022

Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More

                                         (1)
                                                      975 criappln-2660.2021.odt

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

            975 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2660 OF 2021
 1.       Sayyad Nuruddin Sayyad Taheroddin
          (withdrawn)
 2.       Shahajan Begum Sayyed Taheroddin
 3.       Sayyad Jubairoddin Sayyad Taheroddin
 4.       Abdul Vahid Karimoddin                                   Applicants
                           Versus
 1.       The State of Maharashtra
 2.       Ikra Anjum Sayyad Nuruddin                               Respondents


                                          ...
 Mr. Suresh P. Salgar, Advocate for the applicants.
 Mr. K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent No. 1.
 Mr. S.N. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.2.
                                  ...

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

                           DATE     :   30-03-2022.


 P.C. :

1. Heard fnally with consent at the admission stage.

2. The applicants / original accused are seeking

quashing of F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 134/2021 registered with

Ambad Police Station, Taluka Ambad, District Jalna for the

offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequential

975 criappln-2660.2021.odt

proceedings bearing R.C.C. No. 442 of 2021 pending before

the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambad, District

Jalgaon.

3. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that

though the names of the applicants are mentioned in the

F.I.R., the allegations as against them are general in nature.

Learned Counsel submits that the allegations have been

made mainly against co-accused husband whose application

seeking quashing of the proceedings came to be withdrawn.

Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that applicant

No.2 is aged mother-in-law and applicant No.3 is brother-in-

law of respondent No. 2. There are no allegations against

applicant No.4, who is uncle-in-law of respondent No.2.

Learned Counsel submits that it is a case of over-implication

in connection with the present crime.

4. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that

names of the applicants are mentioned in the F.I.R. with

specifc allegations against each of them. Learned Counsel

submits that after marriage in the year 2018, respondent No.2

was treated well for a period of six months only and thereafter

subjected to ill-treatment for various reasons by the

975 criappln-2660.2021.odt

applicants and co-accused husband. Learned Counsel

submits that co-accused husband is in temporary

employment and thus the applicants and co-accused

husband have demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- for the purpose of

his permanent job. Even respondent No. 2 was driven out

from the house on account of non-fulfllment of the said

demand. Learned Counsel submits that there is triable case

against the applicants. 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

complaint and also perused the charge-sheet. Though we

fnd names of the applicants mentioned in the F.I.R. however,

the allegations as against them are general in nature without

quoting any specifc incident ascribing them the individual

roles. It appears that respondent No. 2 has impleaded all the

family members in connection with the present crime and

even the distant relative like applicant No.4 is also not spared.

There are no allegations at all against applicant No.4, who is

the uncle-in-law of respondent No. 2. Further, the allegations

975 criappln-2660.2021.odt

about demand, ill-treatment and driving out of the house are

mainly against the husband whose application seeking

quashing of the proceedings came to be withdrawn.

7. 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."

8. 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

975 criappln-2660.2021.odt

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" .

9. 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 cautious when omnibus allegations are made

975 criappln-2660.2021.odt

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 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-

975 criappln-2660.2021.odt

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."

10. In the instant case, the allegations as against the

applicants are general and absurd in nature. Even if those

allegations are held to be proved, no case is made out against

them. In view of the same, continuation of the proceedings as

against the applicants would be abuse of the process of

Court.

11. 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.

975 criappln-2660.2021.odt

ORDER

(i) Criminal Application is hereby allowed to the extent of the applicants before us, in terms of prayer clause [B].