AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
The present application is filed for quashing the FIR bearing Crime No.170/2015, registered with Cidco Gramin Police Station, Dist.Nanded to the extent of present applicants. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants before this Court are not husband nor the parents-in-law of the complainant. The applicants herein are husband''s sisters and uncle of the husband of the complainant. The applicants reside separately at other places. Some of the applicants reside in different State i.e. Karnataka. The learned counsel submits that on 3.7.2015, complaint is filed U/s 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the present applicants and the other three persons. According to the learned counsel, as far as present applicants are concerned, no specific averments of ill treatment is made against them. The applicants are not involved in any offence and on the basis of such vague averments and allegations, the complaint can not proceed. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Chandralekha and others v. State of Rajasthan and another" reported in 2013 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.)577.
Mr. Kochar, learned counsel for Respondent No.2/original complainant submits that at this stage, the complaint as it is required to be considered. There are specific allegations made against the present applicants. The present applicants were instigating the husband and the parents-in-law of the complainant. The said recitals are specifically made in the complaint. Considering the complaint as it is, the offence even against present applicants is made out. As such the complaint can not be quashed and set aside even to the extent of present applicants. The learned counsel relies on judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Taramani Parakh v. State of M.P. and others" reported in 2015(2) Bom.C.R. (Cri.)453.
We have considered the submissions of the complaint. There can not be any dispute with the proposition that at this stage, the complaint is required to be considered as it is.
The allegations are arising out of matrimonial dispute. The Apex Court has observed that the tendency has however, developed to rope in all relations of in laws. If the same is not discouraged, it is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits.
Perusal of FIR, it is manifest that as far as present applicants are concerned, no specific role is attributed to them nor any date and time is detailed in the complaint as far as present applicants are concerned.
Our observations are restricted to the present applicants only. We are not concerned with the allegations made against the husband, the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the complainant in the present matter. Perusal of the complaint in its entirety, no specific allegations are made against the present applicants except that whenever these applicants use to come to her house, they used to instigate the husband and the parents-in-law. No dates are ever mentioned in the complaint of the alleged acts. Such a complaint can not be allowed to be proceeded against the present applicants.
The Apex Court in a case of "Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another" reported in "(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 741", has also observed :
"What we wish to emphasise by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against the accused more so against the co-accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant wife. It is the well settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of process of law"
In light of the above, the present application is allowed. The FIR bearing Crime No.170/2015 dated 3.7.2015, registered with Cidco Gramin Police Station, Dist. Nanded for offence punishable U/ss. 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C to the extent of present applicants is quashed and set aside.
The Criminal Application is accordingly disposed of.