Full Text
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.14 OF 2019
JUDGMENT
1) Ashok Basvanappa Holkunde ] Age: 63 years, Occ.:Retired, ] R/at: “Basav-Kunj”, ] Sant Dnyaneshwar Nagar, ] L.I.C. Colony, Ring Road, ] Latur – 413512 ]
2) Sou. Jayashri Ashok Holkunde ] Age: 57 years, Occ.: Housewife, ] R/at: “Basav-Kunj”, ] Sant Dnyaneshwar Nagar, ] L.I.C. Colony, Ring Road, ] Latur – 413512 ]
3) Ajay Ashok Holkunde ] Age: 37 Yrs, Occ.: Service, ] R/at: A 1-902, Rosa gardenia ] Behind hypercity, Ghoubander Road, ] Kasarwadvali, Thane West – 400615 ]
4) Dr.Ajit Ashok Holkunde ] Age: 34 years, Occ.: Service, ] R/at: Flat No.7, Building O ] Staff Quarters, ] Smt. Kashibai Navale Medical College ] Narhe, Pune – 411041 ] … Applicants V/s.
1) State of Maharashtra ]
2) Officer-in-Charge, ] Pimpri Police Station, Pune ]
3) Sau. Yogita Amol Holkunde ] Age: 33 years, Occ.: Service ] VINOD MAYEKAR R/at: Flat No.14, B-3, ] Green field Hsg. Society, Vastu Udyog, ] Pimpri, Dist.: Pune ] … Respondents Ms.Pradnya Borhade i/b. Mr.Sachin H.Deokar for Applicants. Smt. Savita M.Yadav, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – State. Mr. Venkatesh A. Shastry for Respondent No.3. Mr. Ganesh Aatawe, PSI, Sant Tukaram Nagar Police Station, Pune present. CORAM: A. S. GADKARI AND RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ. DATE: 17th JULY, 2025 JUDGMENT ( Per: A.S.Gadkari, J.):- 1) By this Application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Applicants, i.e. father-in-law (Applicant No.1); mother-in-law (Applicant No.2); brothers-in-law (Applicant Nos. 3 and 4) of Respondent No.3, are seeking quashing of C.R.No. 1052 of 2018, dated 6th November, 2018, registered with Pimpri Police Station, Pune City, under Sections 498-A, 506(2), 323, 504, 506, 507 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2) Heard Ms. Borhade, learned Advocate for Applicants, Smt. Yadav, learned A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Shastry learned Advocate for Respondent No.3, the informant. Perused entire record produced before us.
3) Record indicates that, by an Order dated 14th June, 2023, the Application was admitted and interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) qua the Applicants, was granted. After service of notice, Advocate Mr.Shastry appears for Respondent No.3.
4) Mr. Shastry, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.3 opposed the Application and submitted that, there are certain allegations levelled against the Applicants and therefore the said crime qua the Applicants may not be quashed.
5) A minute perusal of FIR clearly indicates that, the allegations as against the Applicants are absolutely vague, omnibus and generic in nature. The major allegations are against Mr. Amol Ashok Holkunde, i.e. the husband of Respondent No.3.
6) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, in Para No.17 has held as under:-
6.1) It is further held that, when the allegations against the in-laws are general and omnibus in nature, the Court may quash the crime against the said in-laws.
6.2) In case of Mohammed Qamruddin & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 2309 of 2024, dated 29th April, 2024, while following the decision of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. (supra) in paragraph 4, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
7) After applying the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of (i) Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. (supra) and (ii) Mohammed Qamruddin & Ors. (supra), we are of the considered view that, continuation of present crime against the Applicants will be sheer abuse of process of law and needs to be quashed.
8) In view of the above, Application is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)