Courts adopt a cautious approach in matrimonial disputes, require specific allegations and role of accused, absurd allegations do not constitute a triable case

JUDGMENT

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicants for some time. The learned counsel for the applicants, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw this criminal application to the extent of applicant no.1, 2, 5 and 7.

2. Leave granted. Application of applicant no.1-Saurabh s/o Suryakant Kadam (husband of respondent No.2), 2-Suryakant Laxman Kadam (father-in-law of respondent no.2), 5-Kiran s/o Suryakant Kadam (brother-in-law of respondent no.2) and applicant no.-7 Vinay s/o Chandrakant Santabanavar (Shinde) (husband of sister-in-law of respondent no.2) is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.

3. Heard finally with consent at admission stage.

4. The applicants are seeking quashing of the FIR bearing crime no. 158 of 2021 registered with Police Station Sadar Bazar, Jalna for the offence punishable under section 498-A, 354, 354-D, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC and section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that though names of the applicants before the Court are mentioned in the FIR, however, the allegations have been made mainly against the husband, father-in-law, brother-in-law and husband of the sister-in-law, whose application seeking quashing of the FIR came to be withdrawn today. Though, names of the applicants are mentioned in the FIR, however, the allegations as against them are general in nature, without ascribing any specific individual role. Learned counsel submits that, the applicant no.3-is mother-in-law, applicant no. 4 is brother of father-in-law, applicant no.6 is wife of brother-in-law and applicant no.8 is married sister-in-law. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is no triable case against them. It is a case of over implication.

5. Learned appointed counsel for respondent no.2 submits that, names of the applicants before the Court are mentioned in the FIR, with the specific role attributed to each of them. Respondent no.2 was treated well for some period after marriage, however, she was subjected to cruelty by co-accused husband, for various reasons. Even though respondent no.2 has complained about the same to the present applicants, however, they have supported co-accused husband and ignored her allegations. Learned counsel submits that, there is a triable case against all the applicants. There is no substance in the criminal application and the criminal application is liable to be dismissed.

6. We have also heard the learned APP for the respondent no. 1-State.

7. We have carefully gone through the contents of the complaint and also perused the police papers. It appears that after marriage, in the month of May, 2019 respondent no.2 went to Bangalore for cohabitation with her husband, however, she was subjected to cruelty by co-accused husband. She came to know that her husband had some extra marital relations with one Jasvir Kaur. There are serious allegations against co-accused Husband. It further appears that, there are allegations against co-accused father-in-law, co-accused husband of the sister-in-law to the extent that they tried to take undue advantage of her alleged ill-treatment at the hands of co-accused husband and tried to develop the relations with her. Though, respondent no.2 has not given any heed to their attempts, however, they have exhausted all the opportunities to touch inappropriately with some ulterior motive. So far as the applicants before this Court are concerned, allegations against them are absurd in nature.

8. 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 "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 a