1918 Jyoti Rajendra Thombare Vs.

State of Maharashtra 2021

more persons is not maintainable (3) With these directions all the writ
………….” petitions are dismissed of accordingly.
“………..Even if a complaint is filed by (4) Rule is discharged.
two, the Court can treat the complaint as Petition dismissed.
one by the first respondent at a later stage
____________________
and the complaint need not be quashed
at this stage for that reason.”
2021 ALL MR (Cri) 1918
It will not be out of place to mention here
that, a contrary view was taken by the Chief IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
Court of Oudh in Abdul Karim and another BOMBAY
v. Nangoo and Another, reported in A.I.R. (AURANGABAD BENCH)
(29) 1942 Oudh 407 : 43 Cri. L.J. 731, V. K. JADHAV &
wherein it was held that,
M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.
“There is no legal objection to such a joint
complaint and upon a such joint complaint Jyoti w/o. Rajendra Thombare & Ors.
it is incumbent upon the Magistrate to Vs.
examine both complainants.” The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
18. It is to be noted here in this Criminal Application No.287 of 2020.
case the question is, as to who should be 8th March, 2021.
permitted to continue the prosecution.
Prosecution can be continued by one person Shri AMOL GANDHI h/f. Shri P.S.MEHTA, Adv.
and when it comes to examination, both the for Applicants.
complainants are not going to depose same Shri A.V. DESHMUKH, APP for Respondent
facts. Therefore, it would be appropriate that No.1-State.
in such cases either the legal representatives Miss ASHLESHA KULKARNI, Adv. for
to decide who amongst them would continue Respondent No.2. (appointed)
the prosecution or the Magistrate can give Criminal P.C. (1973), Ss.482, 154 –
them option and allow the complaint to Quashing of FIR – Cruelty and
proceed and be prosecuted by only one harassment of wife – General allegations
person. Necessary directions to that effect made against husband and sister-in-law
are required to be given in this case. There is without quoting any specific incident in
no merit in the writ petitions, they deserves FIR and charge sheet – FIR against them,
to be dismissed. Hence, following order. held, liable to be quashed. (Para 11)
ORDER
(1) Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. CASES CITED : PARA
(2) The respondents No.1 and 2 either to Geeta Mehrotra and Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
take a decision and inform to the and Ors., 2012 ALL MR (Cri) 4059 (S.C.) :
Magistrate, as to amongst them who AIR 2013 SC 181 .................................... 7
would continue the prosecution or the Ramesh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2005 ALL
Magistrate to give them option, and MR (Cri) 1795 (S.C.) : (2005) SCC (Cri.)
continue the prosecution/ complaint in any 735 .......................................................... 7
ones name. G.V. Rao Vs. L.H.V. Prasad and Ors., 2000
2021 ALL MR (Cri) - May-June
ALL MR (Cri) Jyoti Rajendra Thombare Vs. State of Maharashtra 1919

ALL MR (Cri) 1375 (S.C.) : (2000) 3 SCC 5. Learned counsel for

693 .......................................................... 8 respondent No.2-informant submits that the
Preeti Gupta and Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand names of applicant Nos.2 and 3 are mentioned
and Anr., 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 2947 (S.C.) : in the FIR with specific role attributed to each
AIR 2010 SC 3363 ................................ 10 of them. The learned counsel submits that
applicant No.3-Surekha resides in Aurangabad
V. K. JADHAV, J. :- Heard finally with itself and she used to visit the matrimonial
consent of the parties at the admission stage. house of respondent No.2. There are
2. The learned counsel for the allegations that all the accused persons have
applicants, on instructions, seeks leave to harassed respondent No.2-informant on
withdraw the application to the extent of account of non-fulfillment of unlawful
applicant No.1-Jyoti Rajendra Thombare. demand of cash amount for purchasing a
Leave granted. Application of applicant No.1 shop. The learned counsel for respondent
- Jyoti is disposed of as withdrawn. No.2 submits that there is no substance in
this application and application is liable to be
3. This application pertains to dismissed.
quashing of FIR No.5 of 2020 dated 04-01-
6. We have heard learned APP
2020 for the offence punishable under
for the respondent No.1-State. We have
Sections 498A, 323, 324, 504 and 506 read
carefully gone through the contents of the
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
FIR. We have also carefully gone through
Furthermore, during the pendency of this
the charge-sheet. It appears that the
application, the charge-sheet has been allegations have been made mainly against co-
submitted and the amendment is carried out accused husband and applicant No.1-Jyoti
under the order of this Court in the prayer (sister-in-law), whose application seeking
clause for quashing of the proceedings quashing of FIR is withdrawn today. Though
bearing R.C.C. No.1392 of 2020 pending the names of applicant Nos.2 and 3 are
before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, mentioned in the FIR and they have been
Aurangabad, in connection with the aforesaid impleaded as accused and charge-sheet has
crime. been submitted against them, however, there
4. The learned counsel for the are general allegations against them without
applicants submits that though the names of quoting any specific incident.
applicant Nos.2 and 3 are mentioned in the 7. In the case of Geeta
FIR, however, the allegations have been made Mehrotra and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and
mainly against the co-accused husband and Ors., reported in AIR 2013 SC 181 : [2012
sister in law-Jyoti Rajendra Thombare. ALL MR (Cri) 4059 (S.C.)], the Hon’ble
Applicant No.2 - Rajendra Tatyarao Supreme Court by referring the observations
Thombare is husband of applicant No.1-Jyoti made in the case of Ramesh Vs. State of
(sister-in-law), whereas applicant No.3- Tamil Nadu reported in (2005) SCC (Cri.)
Surekha Bhaskar Jivrag is another married 735 to 738 : [2005 ALL MR (Cri) 1795
sister in law. The learned counsel for the (S.C.)], in paragraph No.17 has made the
applicants submits that general allegations have following observations:
been made against applicant Nos.2 and 3 “17. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court
without quoting any specific incident as such. in this matter had been pleased to hold
2021 ALL MR (Cri) - May-June
1920 Jyoti Rajendra Thombare Vs. State of Maharashtra 2021

that the bald allegations made against the “there has been an outburst of
sister-in-law by the complainant appeared matrimonial dispute in recent times.
to suggest the anxiety of the informant to Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main
rope in as many of the husband’s relatives purpose of which is to enable the young
as possible. It was held that neither the couple to settle down in life and live
FIR nor the charge sheet furnished the peacefully. But little matrimonial
legal basis for the magistrate to take skirmishes suddenly erupt which often
cognizance of the offences alleged against assume serious proportions resulting in
the appellants. The learned Judges were heinous crimes in which elders of the
pleased to hold that looking to the family are also involved with the result
allegations in the FIR and the contents that those who could have counselled and
of the charge-sheet, none of the alleged brought about rapprochement are rendered
offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and helpless on their being arrayed as accused
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in the criminal case. There are many
were made against the married sister of reasons which need not be mentioned here
the complainant’s husband who was for not encouraging matrimonial
undisputedly not living with the family litigation so that the parties may ponder
of the complainant’s husband. Their over their defaults and terminate the
Lordships of the Supreme Court were disputes amicably by mutual agreement
pleased to hold that the High Court ought instead of fighting it out in a court of
not to have relegated the sister-in- law to law where it takes years and years to
the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the conclude and in that process the parties
proceedings against the appellants were lose their “young” days in chasing their
quashed and the appeal was allowed.” cases in different courts.”
8. In paragraph No.20, by The view taken by the judges in this matter
referring the observations made in the case was that the courts would not encourage
of G.V. Rao Vs. L.H.V. Prasad and Ors. such disputes.”
reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 : [2000 ALL 9. In paragraph No.27 of the
MR (Cri) 1375 (S.C.)], the Hon’ble Supreme Judgment, while concluding the issue, the
Court has made the following observations: Hon’ble Supreme Court has made the
“20. It would be relevant at this stage to following observations:
take note of an apt observation of this “27. We, therefore, deem it just and legally
Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao appropriate to quash the proceedings
v. L.H.V. Prasad and Ors. reported in initiated against the appellants Geeta
MANU/SC/3156/2000 : (2000) 3 SCC 693 Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra as the FIR
wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this does not disclose any material which could
Court had held that the High Court should be held to be constituting any offence
have quashed the complaint arising out against these two appellants. Merely by
of a matrimonial dispute wherein all making a general allegation that they
family members had been roped into the were also involved in physical and mental
matrimonial litigation which was quashed torture of the complainant-respondent
and set aside. Their Lordships observed No.2 without mentioning even a single
therein with which we entirely agree that: incident against them as also the fact as
2021 ALL MR (Cri) - May-June
ALL MR (Cri) Amrut Dayaram Shinde Vs. Bhikan Dhudkoo Patil 1921

to how they could be motivated to demand husband or the husband’s relations had
dowry when they are only related as to remain in jail even for a few days, it
brother and sister of the complainant’s would ruin the chances of amicable
husband, we are pleased to quash and set settlement altogether. The process of
aside the criminal proceedings in so far suffering is extremely long and painful.”
as these appellants are concerned and 11. In the instant case, the ratio
consequently the order passed by the High laid down in the aforesaid cases squarely
Court shall stand overruled. The appeal applies. There are no allegations against
accordingly is allowed” applicant No.2 - Rajendra. So far as applicant
10. In the case of Preeti Gupta No.3 - Surekha, who is sister in law, is
and Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr. concerned, her name is only referred in the
reported in AIR 2010 SC 3363 : [2010 ALL FIR without making any specific allegation.
MR (Cri) 2947 (S.C.)], the Hon’ble Supreme Thus, in view of above, we are inclined to
Court, after referring various cases on this allow this application to the extent of applicant
point, in paragraph No.33 of the Judgment, Nos.2 and 3. Hence, the following order:
has made the following observations: ORDER
“33. The ultimate object of justice is to I) Criminal Application is allowed in terms
find out the truth and punish the guilty of prayer clause ‘A-1’ to the extent of the
and protect the innocent. To find out the applicant Nos.2 and 3.
truth is a herculean task in majority of
II) The High Court Legal Services
these complaints. The tendency of
Authority Sub-Committee, Aurangabad
implicating husband and all his immediate
shall pay the fees of the appointed counsel
relations is also not uncommon. At times,
as per the Rules.
even after the conclusion of criminal trial,
it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. III) Criminal Application is accordingly
The courts have to be extremely careful disposed of.
and cautious in dealing with these Application allowed.
complaints and must take pragmatic __________________
realities into consideration while dealing
with matrimonial cases. The allegations 2021 ALL MR (Cri) 1921
of harassment of husband’s close relations
who had been living in different cities and IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
never visited or rarely visited the place BOMBAY
where the complainant resided would have (AURANGABAD BENCH)
an entirely different complexion. The SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.
allegations of the complaint are required
to be scrutinized with great care and Amrut s/o. Dayaram Shinde
circumspection. Experience reveals that Vs.
long and protracted criminal trials lead Bhikan Dhudkoo Patil
to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the Criminal Writ Petition No.1620 of 2019.
relationship amongst the parties. It is also 16th December, 2019.
a matter of common knowledge that in
cases filed by the complainant if the Mr. S.R. PATIL, Adv. for Petitioner.
2021 ALL MR (Cri) - May-June