High Court
Facts
cran1167.23-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1167 OF 20231.Fahimunnisa Momin Mohammad Ibrahim Momin Age 62 years, Occ. HouseholdR/o. 214/3, Yusuf Faiz Chawl, Takiya Ward, Kurla (West)Mumbai 400 070 (mother in law) (withdrawn) 2.Nazema Kauser Mohammed Maseeyuddin (abated) (sister in law) 3.Mohammed Maseeyuddin Hafijuddin Momin Age 54 years, Occ. Business,R/o. Mominpura, Near JamaMasjid, Beed,Tq. and district Beed ...Applicants (Husband of sister in law) Versus 1.The State of Maharashtra Through Police InspectorShivaji Nagar police stationBeed, Tq. and district Beed 2.Arshiya Begum Mohammad Riyaz,Age 32 years, Occ. ServiceR/o. Kazi Nagar, Balepir,Nagar Road, BeedTq. and district Beed ...Respondents …..Mr. N.K. Tungar, Advocate for the applicantsMr. A.R. Kale, A.P.P. for the respondent No.1Mr. Sayyed Tausif , advocate for respondent No.2 ….. cran1167.23-2- CORAM:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATED:4th JULY, 2025 O R D E R (PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) :- 1.Heard learned advocates for the applicants for therespective parties. 2.This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) for quashing thecriminal proceeding bearing R.C.C. No. 75 of 2023 pending beforeIInd Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Beed, District Beed, and chargesheet No. 19 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 18 of 2023, dated12.1.2023, registered with Shivaji Nagar police station, Beed, DistrictBeed, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504,506 r.w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the I.P.C.”).3.After hearing for some time, when this court showeddisinclination to grant relief to applicant No.1, learned advocate forthe applicants, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw theapplication of applicant No.1. Leave granted. The application to theextent of applicant No.1 stands dismissed as withdrawn. Theapplication stands abated as against the applicant No.2 as she diedduring pendency of proceeding. Hence, this application is beingconsidered to the extent of applicant No.3 only. cran1167.23-3- 4.The informant averred in the report that applicant Nos. 3 ishusband of her sister in law i.e. applicant No.2, presently she is nomore. 5.The informant further averred in the report that she marriedwith co-accused Shaikh Mohammad Riyaz Mohammad Ibrahim asperMuslim rituals on 27.10.2013. After marriage, she went to reside ather matrimonial house at Mominpura, Beed with her husband and inlaws. Out of the wedlock, he informant begotten one son Umer andone daughter Barira. The informant averred that on 25.11.2024, herhusband had asked her to bring Rs.10,00,000/- from her parents forprocuring a job and for purchase of four wheeler. The parents in lawsassaulted the informant and used bad words. The applicant used toharass the informant mentally as well as physically and starve her.The informant told about the same to her parents and her parentstried to convince the applicant, her husband and other in laws.6.The informant further averred that in the meantime, sheconceived and she gave birth to a baby boy viz. Umer. After 3-4months of her delivery, the applicant and others accused personsstarted to harass her and used to demand money. Though theparents of the informant had been to her matrimonial home, tried to cran1167.23-4- pacify them but it was of no use and on the contrary, the harassmentand cruelty was increased. The other accused persons used toinstigate the husband of the informant for her ill-treatment. Again, theinformant conceived and she gave birth to a baby girl Barira. Theinformant averred that considering the future of the children, she wasresiding with the applicant and other accused persons in suchsituation.7.The informant further averred that her husband asked herto bring amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for securing a job and forpurchasing of four wheeler. The informant lastly averred that herhusband driven her out of the house with both the children. It is withthese contentions, the report came to be lodged by the informant.8.Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that theapplicant is no way concerned with the allegations made by theinformant. The present applicant is residing at a different place.There are vague and baseless allegations made against theapplicant, without quoting the specific role of the applicant. Thedate and time of allegation of abuses, beating and demand of amountof Rs.10,00,000/- for securing the job and purchase of four wheeler,is also not attributed to the present applicant. All allegations arevague and general in nature. There is a delay in lodging the report. cran1167.23-5- From the charge sheet, it appears that all the witnesses whosestatements are recorded are from the parental side of the informant.The said statements of the witnesses cannot prove that theharassment and cruelty has been caused to the informant. Thisapplicant is close relative of the husband of the informant and he hasbeen falsely implicated in the crime without any basis. Therefore, heprayed to quash the proceedings. 9.Learned A.P.P. for respondent No.1 State and learnedadvocate for respondent No.2 strongly opposed the application bysubmitting that the applicant has treated the informant with cruelty.At the instance of the present applicant, there was demand ofRs.10,00,000/- for securing the job and purchasing of four wheelerand on account of non fulfillment of the said demand, the applicanthas treated the informant with cruelty. Though the applicant isresiding at different place, he used to visit the house of husband ofthe informant and instigate him to harass the informant. The specificrole by mentioning his name is attributed to the applicant. Theapplicant cannot be exonerated from the criminal liability underSections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 r.w. 34 of the I.P.C. It is lastlyprayed to reject the application. 10.It would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble cran1167.23-6- Supreme court in the case of Kim Wansoo Vs. State of UttarPradesh & Ors., reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 17 , in which theHon’ble Supreme Court, in paras 9 and 11 of the judgment, has heldas under :“9.In State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, this Courtagain held that where an FIR did not disclose the commissionof an offence without anything being added or subtracted fromthe recitals thereof, the said FIR could be quashed.11.In the contextual situation, it is also relevant to refer tothe decision of this Court in Mohammad Wajid and Anotherv. State of U.P. and Anr., whereunder this Court, in so far asit is relevant, held thus :-“34…….. it will not be just enough for the Court tolook into the averments made in the FIR/complaintalone for the purpose of ascertaining whether thenecessary ingredients to constitute the allegedoffence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatiousproceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into manyother attending circumstances emerging from recordof the case over and above the averments and, ifneed be, with due care and circumspection try toread in between the lines. The Court while exercisingits jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC orArticle 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itselfonly to the stage of a case but is empowered to takeinto account the overall circumstances leading to theinitiation/registration of the case as well as materialscollected in the course of investigation…..”
Legal Reasoning
cran1167.23-7- 11.We have perused the report and the statements of thewitnesses. In so far as the present applicant is concerned, no specificincident of cruelty is stated by the informant and whatever she hasalleged, the same is without quoting any date and time. There isdelay in lodging the report. Prima facie, it appears that the report islodged after thought from the parental house of the informant. Thus,the allegations of cruelty are vague and general in nature. If all theseaspects are considered together, the offences punishable underSections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. are notestablishing against the applicant. There is no medical evidence ofinjuries caused to the informant due to the alleged beating so as toestablish essential ingredients of Section 323 of the I.P.C.Therefore, on such vague and general allegations, compelling theapplicant to face the trial, would be an abuse of the process of thecourt. The case is made out for exercise of our powers under section482 of the Cr.P.C. We are therefore, inclined to allow the application,in the interest of justice to prevent the abuse of the process of theCourt. Hence, the following order:-O R D E R I.The application stands partly allowed. II.The R.C.C. No. 75 of 2023 pending before IInd Judicial cran1167.23-8- Magistrate, First Class, Beed, District Beed, and charge sheetNo. 19 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 18 of 2023, dated12.1.2023, registered with Shivaji Nagar police station, Beed,District Beed, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. are quashed and set aside tothe extent of applicant No.3. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)rlj/