High Court
Legal Reasoning
1APPLN.1121.2023.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1121 OF 20231.Minhajoddin s/o Murtaja Shaikh,Age-31 yrs, Occ- Labour, R/o. Near Almin School, Mahadeo Nagar, T.V.C. Aland, Tq - Aland Dist.- Gulbarga.2.Murtaja Khajasaab Shaikh,Age-59 yrs, Occ- Labour, R/o. Near Almin School, Mahadeo Nagar, T.V.C. Aland, Tq - Aland Dist.- Gulbarga.3.Mubina d/o Murtaja Shaikh,Age- 26 yrs, Occ- Education & Hosehold, R/o. Near Almin School, Mahadeo Nagar, T.V.C. Aland, Tq - Aland Dist.- Gulbarga.4.Iram @ Saba d/o Murtaja Shaikh,Age-26 yrs, Occ- Education, R/o. Near Almin School, Mahadeo Nagar, T.V.C. Aland, Tq - Aland Dist.- Gulbarga.… ApplicantsVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Supt of police Latur.2.The Officer in Charge,Police Station, Killari Tq.- Nilanga & Dist.- Latur.3.Vasimabegum Nihajoddin ShaikhAge-30 yrs, Ccc- Houshold, R/o- Nanand, Tq-Nilanga, Dist.-Nanded.… Respondents
Legal Reasoning
2APPLN.1121.2023.odt...Mr. Nilkanth P. Bangar, Advocate for Applicants.Mrs. P. R. Bharaswadkar, APP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.Mr. Dinkar G. Kamble, Advocate for Respondent No.3....CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE :08th July, 2025.O R D E R: (Per Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.)1Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 2This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) for quashing of theproceedings in R.C.C. No.49 of 2023, pending before the Court of thelearned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ausa, District Latur. Theproceedings arise out of FIR bearing Crime No.268 of 2022, dated 3rdDecember, 2022, registered with Killari Police Station, District Latur, forthe offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 readwith 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”). 3When this Court expressed disinclination to grant the reliefof quashing the report as well as the proceedings to applicant No.1,the learned counsel for the applicants, on instructions, sought leave to 3APPLN.1121.2023.odtwithdraw his application. Leave is granted. 4The applicant No.2 is the father-in-law of respondentNo.3 / informant. Applicant Nos.3 and 4 are sisters-in-law of theinformant. 5Respondent No.3 / informant averred in the report that shemarried with the son of applicant No.2 on 12th June, 2019, as perMuslim customs and traditions. In her marriage, her parents gaveRs.25,000/- in cash, 1.5 tolas of gold, and household articles. Fromthe said wedlock, she has one daughter named Madina and one sonnamed Hasnain. After the marriage, she was cohabiting with herhusband and the applicants. Initially, for about two months, she wastreated properly. Thereafter, her husband and the applicants started toabuse her over petty household matters and mentally harassed her bytaunting that her parents did not give sufficient dowry or respect duringthe marriage. They beat her and kept her starved. The applicant Nos.2to 4 used to instigate her husband. 6The informant further averred that the applicants started todemand Rs.2,00,000/- from her for the construction of a house. Whenshe expressed her inability to fulfill such demand due to the poorfinancial condition of her parents, the applicants abused her, beat her, 4APPLN.1121.2023.odtand warned her that if she did not bring Rs.2,00,000/- from herparental home, she would not be allowed to stay in the matrimonialhouse. On 5th March, 2022, her husband and the applicants forciblydrove her out of the house alongwith her children. Therefore, shereturned to her parental home. After staying at her parental home forabout three to four months, her husband and the applicants visited herparents’ residence and assured her, in the presence of her relativesNafisa Dildarkhan Pathan (sister), Dildarkha Bashakhan Pathan(brother-in-law) and others, that she would be treated well. Therefore,she returned to her matrimonial home. For about one to two months,her husband and the applicants behaved properly. However, on 30thApril, 2022, her husband and the applicants again started to harassingher, abused her and once again demanded Rs.2,00,000/- forconstruction of the house. She was again driven out of the housealongwith her children.7The informant further averred that on 21st June, 2022, herhusband and applicants No.2 and 3 came to her parental house andabused her. They assaulted her with kicks and fists blows andthreatened to kill her, if she refused to return to Aland immediately. Asthe harassment and cruelty at the hands of the applicants and herhusband continued, the informant submitted a complaint against herhusband at the Women’s Counseling Centre, Latur. Her husband 5APPLN.1121.2023.odtrefused to take the informant back or cohabit with her. Therefore, shelodged the report. 8The learned advocates for the applicants submitted thatapplicant Nos.2 to 4 are falsely implicated in the crime. Falseallegations of treating the informant with cruelty have been madeagainst them. There is no cogent and acceptable evidence againstthem. Only vague and general allegations have been made againstthem. He lastly prayed to allow the application. 9The learned APP for the State and the learned counsel forrespondent No.3 / informant strongly opposed the application andsubmitted that the applicants are involved in a serious crime. Theirnames are mentioned in the report. They treated informant with crueltyand they have committed an anti-social crime. They lastly prayed toreject the application. 10Here, it is relevant to refer to the decision of theHonourable Supreme Court in Mohammad Wajid and Another Vs.State of U.P. and Another, reported in, 2023 SCC Online SC 951;2023 INSC 683, whereunder the Honourable Supreme Court heldthus:-“34.……. it will not be just enough for the Court to look into 6APPLN.1121.2023.odtthe averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for thepurpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients toconstitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. Infrivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty tolook into many other attending circumstances emerging fromthe record of the case over and above the averments and, ifneed be, with due care and circumspection try to read inbetween the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdictionunder Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of theConstitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a casebut is empowered to take into account the overallcircumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the caseas well as the materials collected in the course ofinvestigation....”11A reference also can be made to the judgment in the caseof CBI Vs. Aryan Singh, reported in, 2023 SCC Online SC 379, inwhich the Honourable Supreme Court held as under:-“Para 10… As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage ofdischarge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, whileexercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Courtis not required to conduct the mini trial.”12We have perused the charge-sheet, particularly, the reportand the statements of the witnesses. The witnesses have statedsimilar facts as stated by the informant in the report. 7APPLN.1121.2023.odt13The application of applicant No.1 is withdrawn. So far asapplicant Nos.2 to 4 are concerned, general and vague allegations aremade against them to the effect that they were harassing the informantand demanding Rs.2,00,000/- for construction of house. They areimplicated in the crime only because they are relatives of the husbandof informant. The essential ingredients of Sections 498-A, 323, 504and 506 of the IPC are not established against them. If the entirematerial is considered together, then it would certainly be an abuse ofthe process of the Court, if applicant Nos.2 to 4 are directed to face thetrial. We are, therefore, inclined to allow the application to the extent ofapplicant Nos.2 to 4, by exercising our inherent powers under Section482 of the Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice and to prevent the abuse ofthe process of the Court. The application, therefore, deserves to bepartly allowed in favour of applicant Nos.2 to 4. Hence, the followingorder:-O R D E RI.The application is partly allowed.II.The application of applicant No.1 stands dismissed aswithdrawn.III.The proceedings in R.C.C. No.49 of 2023, pending inthe Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,Ausa, District Latur, arising out of FIR bearing CrimeNo.268 of 2022, dated 3rd December, 2022, registered 8APPLN.1121.2023.odtwith Killari Police Station, District Latur, for theoffences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code,stands quashed to the extent of applicant Nos.2 to 4only. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]nga