High Court
Legal Reasoning
1APPLN.1461.2023.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1461 OF 20231.Shaikh Taufiq Shaikh Farukh(Husband)Age 36 years, Occu. LabourR/o. Raj Mohalla, SailuTq. Sailu, District: Parbhani. 2.Rehana Parvin Shaikh Faruk(Mother in law)Age 55 years, Occu. HouseholdR/o. Raj Mohalla, SailuTq. Sailu, District: Parbhani. 3.Shaikh Farukh Abdul Mazit(Father in law)Age 60 years, Occu. LabourR/o. Raj Mohalla, SailuTq. Sailu, District: Parbhani. 4.Shaikh Rafiq Shaikh Farukh(Brother in law)Age 38 years, Occu. LabourR/o. Raj Mohalla, SailuTq. Sailu, District: Parbhani.5.Shaikh Mukhid Shaikh Farukh(Brother in law)Age 25 years, Occu. LabourR/o. Raj Mohalla, SailuTq. Sailu, District: Parbhani.6.Farah Bano w/o Moin Ansari(Sister in law)Age 34 years, Occu. HouseholdR/o. Bhokardan Naka, JalnaDistrict: Jalna… Applicants(Orig. Accused)
Legal Reasoning
2APPLN.1461.2023.odtVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Police StationSailu, District Parbhani. 2.Anjum Shaikh Taufiq(Wife) Age 28 years, Occu. Household R/o. Raj Mohalla, At present residing at Raj MohallaSailu District Parbhani.… Respondents(No.2 Orig. Complainant) ...Ms. Meenal S. Deshmukh, h/f Mr. A. S. Deshmukh, Advocates for Applicants. Mr. A. D. Wange, APP for respondent No.1 / State. Mr. Manish Purushottam Tripathi, Advocate for Respondent No.2....CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE :02nd July, 2025.O R D E R: (Per Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.)1Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 2Present application has been filed under Section 482 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) initiallyfor quashment of the FIR bearing Crime No.93 of 2023, dated 15thMarch, 2023, registered with Sailu Police Station, District Parbhani, for 3APPLN.1461.2023.odtoffences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 504 read with 34of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”), and later on by way ofamendment, for quashment of charge-sheet bearing No.72 of 2023. 3When this Court expressed disinclination to grant relief ofquashing the report as well as charge-sheet of applicant No.1, thelearned counsel for the applicants, on instructions, seeks leave towithdraw his application. Leave granted. 4Applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the parents-in-law of theinformant / respondent No.2. Applicant Nos.4 and 5 are the brothers-in-law of the informant and applicant No.6 is the sister-in-law of theinformant.5Respondent No.2 / informant averred in the report that hermarriage was solemnized on 24th April, 2011 with the sons of applicantNos.2 and 3 as per Muslim religious rites. After marriage, she wastreated well until the birth of her third child. Thereafter, her husbandand the other applicants began to ill-treat her on trivial issues. Shewas beaten with kicks and fists blows. Her in-laws repeatedly tauntedher, stating that she had not brought any dowry or gifts from herparental home at the time of marriage. They continuously demandedthat she should bring Rs.5,00,000/- from her parents for the purpose of 4APPLN.1461.2023.odtsetting up a shop for her husband, and due to this demand, they usedto harass her. The applicants were instigating her husband by raisingfalse accusations against her, who, being short-tempered, used to beather. She was also not allowed to visit her parental home at Sailu. 6The informant further averred that when she becamepregnant for the fourth time, her husband alongwith applicant Nos.2and 6, continued to abuse and beat her over petty issues. When sheobjected to her husband’s extramarital relationship, the applicantsabused, beat and starved her. On one occasion, she was beaten andthrown out of the matrimonial house during her pregnancy on thepretext that she had not fulfilled the demand of Rs.5,00,000/- from herparental home. Her brother and other relatives tried to convince herbrother and other applicants. They said that they had already spentconsiderable money on the marriage of informant. Thereafter,Rs.3,00,000/- was given to the applicants by raising a loan for wellbeing of the daughter and they are not able to pay that amount. Buther husband and the applicants did not pay any heed to them.7The informant further alleged that prior to being sent to herparental home, her husband took away approximately 90 grams ofgold ornaments which had been gifted to her by her parents. The saidornaments remain in his possession. She gave birth to a daughter 5APPLN.1461.2023.odtthrough cesarean delivery. However, no expenses related to thedelivery were borne by her husband. Since then she is residing withher parents. Therefore, she lodged the report. 8The learned counsel for the applicants submitted thatapplicant Nos.2 to 6 have been falsely implicated in the crime. Thereis no cogent and acceptable evidence against them. Vague andgeneral allegations are made against them. If they are compelled toface the trial, it would be an abuse of the process of the Court. Shelastly prayed to allow the application. 9The learned APP for the State strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that applicant Nos.2 to 6 are involved in aserious offence. Their names are specifically mentioned in the report.They committed anti-social crime. He lastly prayed to reject theapplication. 10The learned counsel for the informant / respondent No.2also strongly opposed the application. He submitted that the names ofthe applicants are mentioned in the report. They are involved inserious crime. There is strong prima-facie evidence against them. Helastly prayed to reject the application. 6APPLN.1461.2023.odt11Here, 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 intothe 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....”12A 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 Court 7APPLN.1461.2023.odtis not required to conduct the mini trial.” 13We have perused the charge-sheet, particularly, the reportand the statements of witnesses. The witnesses have stated similarfacts as stated by the informant in the report. 14The application of applicant No.1 is withdrawn. So far asapplicant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, general and vague allegations aremade against them. No specific incident is stated as to when and inwhat way they treated the informant with cruelty. Applicant No.6 ismarried sister-in-law of the informant. She is residing at Jalna with herhusband. When she came to harass the informant is not stated eitherin the report or in the statements of witnesses. The essentialingredients of Sections 498-A, 323 and 504 of the IPC are notestablishing against them. If the entire material is considered together,then it would certainly be an abuse of the process of the Court, ifapplicant Nos.2 to 6 are directed to face the trial. We are, therefore,inclined to allow the application to the extent of applicant Nos.2 to 6, byexercising our inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in theinterest of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.The application, therefore, deserves to be partly allowed. Hence, thefollowing order:- 8APPLN.1461.2023.odtO R D E RI.The application is partly allowed.II.The application of applicant No.1 stands dismissed aswithdrawn.III.The application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses(B) and (B-1) to the extent of applicant Nos.2 to 6only. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]nga