Mr. Gautam J. Pahilwan, Advocate for v. K. Kotecha, APP for
Legal Reasoning
1W.P.751.2023.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 751 OF 20231.Musa Akbar Shaikh, (Father-in-law) Age:- 53 years, Occ. Labour, R/o At. Jambhali Post- Nilajgaon, Tq. Paithan Dist. Aurangabad. 2.Jaheda @ Jayedabi Musa Shaikh(Mother-in-law), Age:- 49 years, Occ. Household, R/o At. Jambhali Post- Nilajgaon, Tq. Paithan Dist. Aurangabad. 3.Isaq Musa Shaikh (Brother-in-law)Age:-31 years, Occ. Labour, R/o At. Jambhali Post- Nilajgaon, Tq. Paithan Dist. Aurangabad.4.Shabana W/o. Jakir Sayyad,(Sister in law) Age:- 33 years, Occ. Household, R/o At. Post- Ranjangaon Shenpunji, Tq. Paithan Dist. Aurangabad.5.Jakir Najir Sayyad, (Husband of Appl. No.4)Age:-36 years, Occ. Agriculturist, R/o At. Post- Ranjangaon Shenpunji, Tq: Paithan Dist. Aurangabad.… PetitionersVersus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through the Police Officer, Bidkin Police Station Tq- Paithan,Dist-Aurangabad. 2.Anjum W/o. Islam Shaikh,Age:- years, Occ. Household,
Legal Reasoning
2W.P.751.2023.odtR/o At. Jambhali Post- Nilajgaon, Tq. Paithan Dist. Aurangabad. At Present C/o: Innus Sayyed, R/o. Hussain Colony, Near Pundliknagar, Aurangabad.… Respondents…Mr. Gautam J. Pahilwan, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. V. K. Kotecha, APP for respondent No.1 / State. Mr. Shaikh Ashraf Patel, Advocate for Respondent No.2. (Absent)…CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE :22nd July, 2025.O R D E R: (Per Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.)1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and thelearned APP for respondent No.1 / State. 2The present petition has been filed for quashment of theproceedings in R.C.C. No.244 of 2023, pending in the Court of learnedChief Judicial Magistrate Paithan, District Aurangabad, arising out ofFIR bearing Crime No.104 of 2023, dated 24th March, 2023, registeredwith Bidkin Police Station, Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad, for theoffences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”). 3W.P.751.2023.odt3When this Court expressed disinclination to grant relief ofquashment of the report as well as the proceedings to petitioner Nos.1and 2, the learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, seeksleave to withdraw their petition. Leave granted. 4Petitioner No.3 is the brother-in-law of the informant /respondent No.2. Petitioner No.4 is the sister-in-law of the informant.Petitioner No.5 is the husband of petitioner No.4. 5Respondent No.2 / informant averred in the report that hermarriage was solemnized with the son of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 on24th February, 2021, as per Muslim rites and customs. After hermarriage, she started to reside at her matrimonial house at Jambhali,Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad, alongwith her husband, parents-in-law and others. Petitioner Nos.4 and 5 used to frequently visit theirhouse. Initially she was treated well for about six months. Thereafter,without any valid reason, her husband started to harass her physicallyand mentally. 6The informant further averred that on 8th August, 2021,due to a domestic issue, her parents-in-laws abused her parents infilthy language. When the informant intervened and requested themnot to speak ill of her parents and instead address her directly, her 4W.P.751.2023.odthusband assaulted on her stomach by leg. He abused and slappedher and also gave her fists blows. She was starved. The informantwas frightened. She called her parents to take her to her parentalhouse. Accordingly, the next morning, her parents arrived at hermatrimonial house. At that time, her husband and parents-in-law againabused the informant and her parents, and stated that they did notwish to keep her at their house and asked her to leave. They forcefullydrove her and her parents out of the house. Therefore, she returned toher parental house. 7The informant further averred that on 5th October, 2021,when she was taken back to her matrimonial house by her parents, anattempt was made to reconcile the matter with her husband and theparents-in-law. During that discussion, the informant was forced bythem to bring an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for purchasing a tractor. Herparents explained that they belonged to a poor family and were unableto arrange such a large amount. They left the informant at hermatrimonial house and returned. Thereafter, the informant continuedto suffer mental and physical cruelty at the hands of her husband andthe parents-in-law. She was beaten and harassed frequently. On thenight of 23rd March, 2023, her husband and the petitioners once againdemanded Rs.5,00,000/- from the informant. When she refused, theyabused her, beat her with fists and slaps, and threatened to kill her. 5W.P.751.2023.odtThey declared that her husband intended to marry another woman andthat the informant should not stay there any longer. Thereafter, shewas driven out of the house. She contacted her parents and calledthem to take her back. Thereafter, she lodged the report. 8The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted thatpetitioner Nos.3 to 5 are falsely implicated in the crime. There is nocogent and acceptable evidence against them. Vague and generalallegations are made against him. If they are compelled to face thetrial, it would be an abuse of the process of the Court. He lastlyprayed to allow the petition.9The learned APP for the State strongly opposed thepetition and submitted that petitioner Nos.3 to 5 are involved in aserious offence. Their names are mentioned in the report. Theyinstigated the husband of the informant. They committed an anti-socialcrime. There is a strong evidence against them. He lastly prayed toreject the petition. 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:- 6W.P.751.2023.odt“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....”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 witnesses. The witnesses have stated similarfacts as stated by the informant in the report. 7W.P.751.2023.odt13The husband is not a party to this petition. The petition ofpetitioner Nos.1 and 2 is withdrawn. So far as petitioner Nos.3 to 5 areconcerned, general and vague allegations are made against them,without attributing any specific overt act. Petitioner Nos.4 and 5 areresiding at Ranjangaon Shenpunji, Taluka Paithan, DistrictAurangabad. Petitioner Nos.3 to 5 are implicated in the crime onlybecause they are relatives of the husband of informant. The essentialingredients of Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 are not establishedagainst petitioner Nos.3 to 5. If the entire material is consideredtogether with the reasons discussed above, then it would certainly bean abuse of the process of the Court, if petitioner Nos.3 to 5 aredirected to face the trial. We are therefore, inclined to allow thepetition to the extent of petitioner Nos.3 to 5, by exercising our inherentpowers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice and toprevent the abuse of the process of the Court. The petition therefore,deserves to be partly allowed. Hence, the following order:-O R D E RI.The criminal writ petition is partly allowed.II.The petition of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 standsdismissed as withdrawn. 8W.P.751.2023.odtIII.The proceedings in R.C.C. No.244 of 2023, pendingin the Court of learned Chief Judicial MagistratePaithan, District Aurangabad, arising out of FIRbearing Crime No.104 of 2023, dated 24th March,2023, registered with Bidkin Police Station, TalukaPaithan, District Aurangabad, for the offencespunishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 readwith 34 of Indian Penal Code, stands quashed to theextent of petitioner Nos.3 to 5 only. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]nga