High Court

Legal Reasoning

1criappln No.1579-2024IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1579 OF 20241.Karimunnisa Yunus SayyadAge : 61 Years, Occu. : Housewife,R/o. Krushi Vidyalay Road, Pachod Bk.Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad.2.Yunus Bandeali SayyadAge : 62 Years, Occu. : Business,R/o. Krushi Vidyalay Road, Pachod Bk.Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad.3.Mukhtar Yunus SayyadAge : 33 Years, Occu. : Business,R/o. Krushi Vidyalay Road, Pachod Bk.Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad.4.Nisar Yunus SayyadAge : 27 Years, Occu. : Business,R/o. Krushi Vidyalay Road, Pachod Bk.Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad.5.Masarat Affan MahfoozAge : 29 Years, Occu. : Housewife,R/o. 1.7.1005, Near Meraj Masjid, New Shahinsha Nagar, Beed.6.Ishrat Afroz ShaikhAge : 30 Years, Occu. : Housewife,R/o. Shikshak Colony, Shivajinagar,Pachod Bk. Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad.7.Afroz Abdulla ShaikhAge : 43 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o. Shikshak Colony, Shivajinagar,Pachod Bk. Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad.…. ApplicantsVERSUS 2criappln No.1579-20241.The State of MaharashtraThrough the Officer Incharge, Pachod Police Station,Dist. Aurangabad.2.Ashiya W/o. Imran SayyadAge : 36 Years, Occu. : Household,R/o. Ekta Nagar, Opposite Aksa Masjid,Pachod, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. …. Respondents....Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Krishna P. RodgeAPP for Respondent No.1-State : Mrs. P.R. BharaswadkarAdvocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sayyed Tauseef Yaseen (Absent).…CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.Dated : 21st March 2025ORDER [PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.] :-1.This is an application for quashing the First InformationReport (for short “the F.I.R.”) and charge-sheet in R.C.C. No.486 of2023, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (forshort “the Cr.P.C.”), pending before the learned Judicial MagistrateFirst Class, Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad, arising out of Crime bearingNo.0047 of 2023, registered at Pachod Police Station, Dist.Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (Rural) dated 20.02.2023, for theoffences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read withSection 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the I.P.C.”). 3criappln No.1579-20242.Learned Advocate for the applicants pointed out thereport dated 20.02.2023, in which respondent No.2/informantaverred that applicant No.1 is her mother-in-law, applicant No.2 isher father-in-law, applicant Nos.3 and 4 are her brothers-in-law,applicant Nos.5 and 6 are her sisters-in-law and applicant No.7 is thehusband of applicant No.6.3.The informant further averred in her report that, shemarried with the son of applicant Nos.1 and 2 viz. Imran YunusSayyad in the year 2008. She begotten three daughters and threesons. Initially, for one month, she was treated well. Thereafter, all theapplicants and her husband started to harass her. They demandedRs.2 Lakhs for purchasing the articles for cutlery shop. She said thather parents are not having that amount. However, the applicantswere not convinced. They abused her and beaten her. She called herparents by making phone call to them. Her parents, maternal uncleand grandfather came there. They tried to convince the applicantsand her husband. But the applicants and her husband abused and alsopushed them. They threatened to kill them. That time, they told themnot to come to their house henceforth. Therefore, she came to herparents house. She stayed there for two to three months. Thereafter,on 18.11.2022, she filed a complaint at Women Grievance Redressal 4criappln No.1579-2024Cell, Aurangabad, but compromise between them did not take place.Therefore, she lodged the report against the applicants and herhusband. 4.Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that theapplicants are falsely implicated in the crime. The vague allegationsare made against the applicants. The applicants have never treatedthe informant with cruelty. No specific incident is stated by theinformant as to when the applicants and her husband demandedRs.2 Lakhs to her. In respect of the allegations of abusing andthreatening to kill the relatives of the informant, no specific date, timeand place are stated by the informant in the report and witnesses intheir statements as to when that happened. The essential ingredientsof Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. are not establishing againstthe applicants from the report and statements of witnesses. It is lastlyprayed to allow the application by quashing the report and charge-sheet filed against the applicants.5.Learned APP for the State strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that there is a strong evidence of crueltyagainst the applicants. Their names are mentioned in the F.I.R. All theapplicants treated the informant with cruelty by making illegaldemand of money of Rs.2 Lakhs, abusing and beating her and caused 5criappln No.1579-2024physical and mental cruelty to her. They compelled her to reside withher parents. There is a strong evidence of cruelty against theapplicants supported by evidence of witnesses. It is lastly prayed toreject the application. 6.In the context of this case, it would be relevant to referthe following case laws :i) Mohammad Wajid and Another Vs. State of U.P. andAnother, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 951; 2023 INSC 683,wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the law asfollows :-“34….. it will not be just enough for the Court to lookinto the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone forthe purpose of ascertaining whether the necessaryingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosedor not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Courtowes a duty to look into many other attendingcircumstances emerging from the record of the case overand above the averments and, if need be, with due careand circumspection try to read in between the lines. TheCourt while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need notrestrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empoweredto take into account the overall circumstances leading tothe initiation/registration of the case as well as thematerials collected in the course of investigation….” 6criappln No.1579-2024ii)CBI vs. Aryan Singh, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC379, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows :-“10.As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage ofdischarge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings,while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial.”iii)Kim Wansoo Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reportedin 2025 SCC Online SC 17, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inpara.9 of the judgment, has held as under :“9.In State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, thisCourt again held that where an FIR did not disclose thecommission of an offence without anything being addedor subtracted from the recitals thereof, the said FIR couldbe quashed.7.We have perused the charge-sheet, particularly reportand statements of witnesses. In the statements of witnesses, they havestated that the informant was harassed for Rs. 2 Lakhs, which wasdemanded by her husband and the applicants for purchasing cutleryarticles. When the informant told them that the said amount was notwith her parents, the applicants started to harass her. Therefore, thereport is lodged against the applicants. 7criappln No.1579-20248.No specific incident is stated as to when all the applicantsgathered and demanded that amount of Rs.2 Lakhs. ApplicantNo.5/sister-in-law is residing at Beed and applicant No.6 is residingwith her husband at Pachod Bk., Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. Whendid they come to harass and ill-treat the informant has not beenstated specifically either in the report or in the charge-sheet. The roleof each of the applicant is not specifically stated as to when theytreated the informant with cruelty by demanding Rs.2 Lakhs. Thoughthe allegations of harassment on account of Rs.2 Lakhs are made,those are general allegations and those are not specific as to how andwhen the applicants harassed the informant by demandingRs.2 Lakhs. Mere mentioning the names of the applicants in the F.I.R.are not sufficient. The allegations of demanding of Rs.2 Lakhs aremade against the husband of the informant. Though the last incidentis stated, it is not clear as to when it took place with her parents andrelatives when they came there to convince the applicants andhusband of the informant. There are serious allegations against thehusband of the informant. He is not a party in this proceeding.9.Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case,the above reasons and ratio laid down in above authorities, we are ofthe view that, the essential ingredients of Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 8criappln No.1579-2024506 of I.P.C. are not establishing against these applicants. If theapplicants are compelled to face the trial, it would certainly be anabuse of process of Court. We are, therefore, inclined to allow theapplication by invoking our inherent powers under Section 482 ofCr.P.C. in the interest of justice to prevent the abuse of process ofCourt. The application deserves to be allowed. Hence, the followingorder.ORDERI)The application stands allowed.II)The First Information Report and charge-sheet in R.C.C.No.486 of 2023, pending before the learned JudicialMagistrate First Class, Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad,arising out of Crime bearing No.0047 of 2023,registered at Pachod Police Station, Dist. ChhatrapatiSambhajinagar (Rural) dated 20.02.2023, for theoffences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504,506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 stands quashed against the applicants. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ] JUDGE[ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGEasd