VIKASBHIMRAO CHAVAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the counsel of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) So far Applicant No.1 Vikas S/o Bhimrao Chavan is concerned, already his application is dismissed as not pressed on 28th Sept., 2016. The learned counsel appearing for the Applicants, on instructions, does not press hearing of this application of Applicant No.2 Bhimrao S/o Ramrao Chavan and Applicant No.3 Rukmini W/o Bhimrao Chavan and therefore their application stands dismissed as not pressed.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the Applicants invites our attention to the allegations in the first information report and submits that in the entire first information report, there are no specific allegations qua Applicant Nos.4 to 8 (Shila W/o Ramrao Pawar, Mangal W/o Shamrao Pawar, Dr. Paramila w/o Naresh Rathod, Lila W/o Sharad Pawar and Ujjwala d/o Bhimrao Chavan, respectively). It is submitted that neither any specific incident or date has been stated in the first information report alleging that Applicant Nos.4 to 8 have indulged in commission of such alleged incident. It is submitted that even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at its face value and read in its entirety, the alleged offences are not disclosed against the Applicants. It is submitted that Applicant Nos.4 to 8 are residing at the addresses given in the title clause and they have not resided or residing in the matrimonial house. It is submitted that there is a growing tendency of implicating the relatives in matrimonial disputes and taking note of such tendency, the Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, reported in, (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667, has observed that, it is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including the Supreme Court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of society. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Sec. 498A Penal Code are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. It is seen that a large number of such complaints are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern. The learned counsel further invites our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Neelu Chopra and another Vs. Bharti, reported in, (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 184 and submits that in the facts of that case, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR with the observations that the allegations in the complaint are vague and which accused has committed which offence and exact role played by them, is not disclosed in the complaint. He also invites our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in, 2013 AIR (SC) 181 and Kans Raj Vs. State of Panjan, reported in, 2000 AIR (5) SCC 207 and submits that if the allegations in the FIR, which is under scrutiny in the present application are considered, those are also general in nature without attributing any overt act qua the Applicants and therefore, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments is squarely applicable in the facts of the present case, therefore the FIR deserves to be quashed.