MAHESH GOKUL KUMAVAT AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Case Details
1 947 apl 1205-21 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 947 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1205 OF 2021 MAHESH GOKUL KUMAVAT AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... Advocate for Applicants : Mr. D. A. Mane h/f Mr. D. M. Pingale APP for Respondent no.1-State: Mr. R.D. Sanap Advocate for Respondent no.2 : Mr. H. P. Kshirsagar …. CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ. DATED : 18th FEBRUARY, 2022. .... P. C. : 1. Learned counsel for the applicants, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the application of applicant nos.2 and 3. 2. Leave granted. Application of applicant nos. 2-Gokul Shivram Kumawat (father-in-law of respondent no.2) & 3-Shobha w/o Gokul Kumavat (mother-in-law of respondent no.2) is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. 3. Leave to correct prayer clause "B-1". 4.
Facts
Heard fnally with consent of the parties at admission stage. 2 947 apl 1205-21 5. The applicant Yogita w/o Sandip Kumavat is seeking quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No. 152 of 2021 registered with Jamner Police Station, Ta. Jamner, District : Jalgaon for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and also seeking quashing of the proceeding bearing RCC No.95 of 2021 pending before Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Jamner. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant no.4 is a married sister-in-law residing at Nashik Road, Nashik at the time of fling of the complaint and at present she is residing at Chandrapur along with her husband and children. Learned counsel submits that though the name of applicant- Yogita is referred in the FIR, the allegations as against her, are general in nature without quoting any specifc incident or her individual act. It is case of over implication and almost all the family members have been implicated in connection with the present crime. The learned counsel submits that the allegations have been made mainly against co-accused husband, father-in-law and mother-in- law, whose application seeking quashing of the proceeding, came to be withdrawn. 3 947 apl 1205-21 7.
Legal Reasoning
It is well settled that if the allegations are vague in nature, criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. In the instant case, the allegations as made against present applicant-Yogita are even if held to be proved, no case is made out. There is no triable case against the applicant-Yogita. It is a case of over implication. 7 947 apl 1205-21 14. 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 respondent no.2 submits that there are specifc allegations against applicant Yogita. She has instigated co- accused husband to make demand of certain amount for purchase of a car and on account of the non-fulfllment of the said demand, she was subjected to ill-treatment. There is a triable case against applicant Yogita along with co-accused persons. There is no substance in this criminal application, thus, criminal application is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have also heard the learned APP for respondent-State. 9. We have gone through the contents of the complaint so also carefully perused the charge sheeet. Though the name of the applicant Yogita is mentioned in the FIR, however, the allegations as against her are general in nature without quoting any specifc incident or specifying her individual role. It has merely alleged in the complaint that on some festivals she had instigated the co- accused husband to make a demand for purchase of a car and in consequence thereof, respondent no.2 was subjected to ill- treatment on account of non-fulfllment of the said demand by the co-accused persons. However, the allegations are absurd in nature. 4 947 apl 1205-21 10. 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.” 11. 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. 5 947 apl 1205-21 12. 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 permissible. 6 947 apl 1205-21 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 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.” 13.
Decision
O R D E R I) Criminal qpplication is allowed in terms of prayer clause "B and B-1" to the extent of applicant Yogita w/o Sandip Kumawat. II) Application is disposed of accordingly. (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.) vsm/-