ASHOK ANANDA BODKHE AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Case Details
1 cran 1629.21.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 947 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1629 OF 2021 MANOHAR @ ASHOK ANANDA BODKHE AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ... Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Sonawane M R APP for Respondents : Mr. S J Salgare Advocate for Respondent 2 : Mr. Vakil Afzal Husain M. (appointed through legal aid) ... CORAM : V.K. JADHAV & SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ. Dated : January 14, 2022 ... PER COURT :- 1. Heard fnally with consent at adiission stage. 2. The applicants/original accused are seeking quashing of the FIR bearing criie No.9 of 2021 registered with Jafrabad Police Station, Tq. Jafrabad, District Jalna for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 34 of IPC and also seeking quashing of the proceedings vide RCC No.50 of 2021
Facts
pending before the Judicial Magistrate First class, Jalna. aaa/- 2 cran 1629.21.odt 3. Learned counsel for the applicants subiits that applicant no.1 is the brother-in-law of respondent no.2 and he is in private eiployient, serving at Kalyan, District Thane. Applicant No.2 is also in the private eiployient of one Safal Seeds and he also resides at
Legal Reasoning
It is well settled that if the allegations are absurd in nature and if no case is iade 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 iade out against thei. There is no triable case against thei. Thus, continuation of the proceedings against the applicants will be abuse of the Court process. 11.
Arguments
Jalna. Learned counsel for the applicants subiits that, though, naies of the applicants are ientioned in the FIR, however, allegations against thei are general in nature, without quoting any specifc incident. Learned counsel subiits that, naie of the applicant no.1 is only ientioned and allegations are general. Even though one incident is quoted against applicant no.2, however, those allegations are absurd in nature. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 subiits that naies of the applicants are ientioned in the FIR with the specifc role attributed to each of thei. Respondent no.2 was subjected to cruelty by the applicant and co- accused persons for various reasons and even though she was carrying pregnancy, she was forcibly taken froi her parents house. The applicant no.2 was also giving aaa/- 3 cran 1629.21.odt the threats to perfori second iarriage of co-accused husband. There is no substance in this criiinal application and the saie is liable to be disiissed. 5. We have heard the learned APP for the respondent State. 6. We have carefully gone through the contents of the coiplaint and also the charge-sheet. Though, we fnd naie of the applicant no.1 is ientioned in the FIR, however, the allegations as against hii are general in nature, without quoting any specifc individual incident. So far as the applicant no.2 is concerned, there are allegations that he had given threats to perfori iarriage of co-accused husband with soie other woian, however, those allegations appears to be absurd for want of details. 7. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra and others v. State of U.P. and others, reported in AIR 2013 SC 181, the Supreie Court has observed that “Courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in iatters of aaa/- 4 cran 1629.21.odt quashing specially in cases of iatriionial dispute whether the FIR in fact discloses coiiission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR priia facie discloses a case of over-iiplication by involving the entire faiily of the accused at the instance of the coiplainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problei or skiriish of doiestic bickering while settling down in her new iatriionial surrounding.” 8. In the case of Neelu Chopra and others v. Bharti, reported in 2010 CrLJ 448, the Supreie Court has observed that, “In order to lodge a proper coiplaint, iere iention of the sections and the language of those sections is not be all and end of the iatter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence coiiitted by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in coiiitting of that offence. The coiplaint in the instant case is sadly vague. It aaa/- 5 cran 1629.21.odt does not show as to which accused has coiiitted what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the coiiission of offence. There could be said soiething against Rajesh, as the allegations are iade against hii iore precisely but he is no iore and has already expired. Under such circuistances, 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 coiplaint 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 Supreie Court has iade the following observations :- “10. The law relating to quashing is well settled. If the allegations are absurd or do not iake 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 iatriionial cases, the courts have to be cautious when oinibus aaa/- 6 cran 1629.21.odt allegations are iade particularly against relatives who are not generally concerned with the affairs of the couple. We iay refer to the decisions of this Court dealing with the issue. 11. to 13. ….. 14. Froi a reading of the coiplaint, it cannot be held that even if the allegations are taken as proved no case is iade out. There are allegations against Respondent 2 and his parents for harassing the coiplainant which forced her to leave the iatriionial hoie. Even now she continues to be separated froi the iatriionial hoie as she apprehends lack of security and safety and proper environient in the iatriionial hoie. The question whether the appellant has in fact been harassed and treated with cruelty is a iatter of trial but at this stage, it cannot be said that no case is iade out. Thus, quashing of proceedings before the trial is not periissible. The decisions referred to in the 15. the High Court are judgient of distinguishable. In Neelu Chopra v. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184, the parents of the husband were too old. The husband Rajesh had died and iain allegations were only against hii. This Court fond no cogent iaterial 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 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 aaa/- 7 cran 1629.21.odt 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 ientioned above and applied to the facts of the cases therein which are distinguishable. In the present case the factual iatrix is different froi the said cases. Applying the settled principles, it cannot be held that there is no triable case against the accused.” 10.
Decision
In view of the above and in teris of the ratio laid down by the Supreie Court, we proceed to pass the following order. O R D E R 1. Criiinal Application is hereby allowed in teris of prayer Clause “B” and “C”. aaa/- 8 cran 1629.21.odt 2. Criiinal Application is accordingly disposed off. 3. Since, Advocate Mr. Vakil Afzal Husain M. is appointed to represent the cause of respondent no.2, we quantify his legal fees and expenses to the tune of Rs.2,000/- (Rs. Two Thousand) to be paid by the High Court Legal Services, Sub- coiiittee, Aurangabad. ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. ) ( V.K. JADHAV, J. ) … aaa/-