KAKAJI PUNDLIK PAWAR AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Case Details
1 948 application 957-21 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 948 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.957 OF 2021 KAKAJI PUNDLIK PAWAR AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ... Advocate for Applicants : Ms. Alka Shelke More Patil APP for Respondent No.1-State: Mr. R. V. Dasalkar Advocate for Respondent no.2 : Mr. Rohit P. Patwardhan h/f Mr. S. S. Jadhav …. CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ. DATED : 5th JANUARY, 2022. .... ORDER : 1. By consent of the parties, heard fnally at admission stage. 2.
Facts
The applicants / accused are seeking quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No. 56 of 2021, registered with Pathardi Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the ofence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of IPC. 3.
Legal Reasoning
It is well settled that if the allegations are absurd and vague in nature and do not make any case, criminal proceedings can be quashed. In the instant case, though the names of the applicants are mentioned in the FIR or the allegations as against them, are absurd and do not make out any case, even from reading of the complaint and even if the allegations as against applicants are held to be proved, no case is made out. 11. In view of above and in terms of ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in above cited cases, we proceed to pass the following order.
Arguments
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that though the names of the applicants are mentioned in the FIR, the allegations as against them are general in nature without attributing any specifc role. Learned counsel submits that the allegations have been made mainly against husband, father-in-law and mother-in- law. Co-accused husband is not before the court. However, the 2 948 application 957-21 father-in-law and mother-in-law have withdrawn their applications seeking quashing of the FIR. Learned counsel submits that applicants before the court are married sister-in-laws and residing with their respective husbands at their respective matrimonial homes. It is a case of over implication. The allegations as against them are absurd and vague. There is no triable case against them. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that the names of the applicants are mentioned in the FIR with specifc role attributed to each of them. Though they are married sister-in- laws, however, applicant no.3- Jyoti and applicant no.4 Aarti, are given at Nashik itself and they are residing at their respective matrimonial homes at Nashik. There are specifc allegations against each of them. There is a triable case against them. There is no substance in the application and the application is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have also heard the learned APP for respondent no.1- State. 6. We have carefully gone through the allegations made in the complaint and also perused the police papers. Though we fnd the names of the applicants in the FIR, however the allegations 3 948 application 957-21 against them are general in nature without attributing any specifc role. It appears that the allegations about the unlawful demand and the cruelty extended to respondent no.2 on account of non- fulfllment of the said amount, have been made mainly against father-in-law and mother-in-law, however, they are not before us as applicants. 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 ofence 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 4 948 application 957-21 Court is the particulars of the ofence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that ofence. The complaint in the instant case is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what ofence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of ofence. 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 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 afairs of the couple. We 5 948 application 957-21 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 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 infexible rule beyond the 6 948 application 957-21 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 diferent from the said cases. Applying the settled principles, it cannot be held that there is no triable case against the accused.” 10.
Decision
ORDER I) Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause "B " to the extent of applicants herein. II) Criminal Application is accordingly disposed of. (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.) vsm/-