High Court

Legal Reasoning

1 Cr. Appln. 1970 / 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1970 OF 20191] Jahedda Mahboob Sayyad @ Bismilabai Mahebubsab Sayyad2] Khauum @ Ismil Maheboob Sayyad3] Joya @ Juhira Ismail Sayyad4] Mainoddin Maheboob Sayyad5] Jainuddin Mehaboob Sayyad6] Parvin Washim Pathan.. Applicants Versus1] The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Vivekanand Chowk, District – Latur2] Taha W/o Daddamiya Sayyad.. Respondents...Advocate for applicants : Mr. Gaurav L. DeshpandeAPP for the respondent – State : Mr. V.M. JawareAdvocate for respondent no. 2 : Mr. Fayaz K. Patel... CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.DATE : 4 MARCH 2024ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :This is an application under section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure seeking quashment of crime no. 326 of 2018registered with Vivekanand Chowk Police Station, Latur for theoffences punishable under section 498-A, 323, 34 of the Indian PenalCode, consequent chargesheet no. 23 of 2019 and Regular CriminalCase No. 52 of 2019 pending on the file of the jurisdictional magistrate.2.We have heard both the sides finally. 2 Cr. Appln. 1970 / 2019 3.The respondent no. 2 lodged the FIR with the allegationsthat her marriage was solemnized on 08-01-2017. She wasmaintained properly for first four months. Thereafter, her husband andthe in-laws started subjecting her to cruelty by declaring that they weredis-liking her, she had not brought adequate gifts and at the instigationof the relatives of the husband, the husband started physically andmentally harassing her. 4.It is then alleged in the FIR that after some understanding,her husband rented a separate residence for the couple. She gotpregnant and delivered a girl. However, thereafter, the husband againstarted harassing her alleging that she was suffering from thyroidmalfunction and he was to solemnize second marriage.5.The FIR then alleges that the ill-treatment having becomeintolerable, she approached the women’s grievance cell and lodged acomplaint. The husband appeared before the cell, promised to takeher for resumption of cohabitation but did not turn up. The FIR wasthen lodged on 27-09-2018.6.The learned advocate for the applicants would submit thataccepting the allegations in the FIR at the face value and even thestatements of the witnesses, basically the allegations are only againstthe husband. No specific and precise allegations have been levelledagainst the applicants. Even the applicant no. 1 has not been 3 Cr. Appln. 1970 / 2019 described in the FIR with correct name. Her correct name is Bismilabiand not Jaheda. Allegations are vague and omnibus. No specificincident has been reported. The statements of the witnesses areequally vague. The applicants have been implicated to wreakvengeance. It would be abuse of the process of law to make theapplicants to face the trial. 7.Per contra, learned APP and the learned advocate for therespondent no. 2 would oppose the application. They would submitthat the prosecution deserves to be extended an opportunity tosubstantiate the charge by leading independent evidence. This is notthe stage to decipher the material collected by the Investigating Officer.The respondent no. 2 had even approached the grievance cell. TheFIR could not be an encyclopedia. It is not a matter of falseimplication. Being the relatives of the husband of the applicants, in allprobability, they had occasion to visit the house of the couple and theapplication be rejected. 8.We have considered the rival submissions and perusedthe papers. 9.There is no dispute as far as the date of marriage being08-01-2017. There is also no dispute, rather the FIR itself mentionsthat the respondent no. 2 was maintained properly for first four months.Though there is no specific date or month, even the FIR mentions that 4 Cr. Appln. 1970 / 2019 the couple started residing separately in a premises rented by thehusband. The husband himself is not before us. If all thesecircumstances are taken into consideration collectively, it was a bareminimum requirement to demonstrate the material so as to attributespecific role to each of these applicants in subjecting the respondentno. 2 to cruelty for variety of reasons, some of which have not beenspoken about in the FIR but are mentioned by the witnesses in theirstatements recorded under section 161 of the Code of CriminalProcedure. In fact, some allegations against some of these applicantshave been levelled in the supplementary statement recorded on thenext day of lodging of the FIR, without assigning any reason as to whythose were not disclosed while lodging the FIR.10.Be that as it may, the applicant no. 1 is the mother in lawalbeit there is an error in referring her first name; in all probability, shemust have been residing with the son and must be aware abouteverything. In our considered view, the fact that the respondent no. 2was cohabiting with the husband and she was subjected to ill-treatmentby demanding money, attributing her with aspersion about infidelitycould have been with the knowledge of the applicant no. 1. It is notexpected that entire evidence could be deciphered to reveal the roleattributable to her precisely. The afore-mentioned facts andcircumstances are indicative of the fact that the respondent no. 2 wassubjected to some ill-treatment for variety of reasons while she was 5 Cr. Appln. 1970 / 2019 cohabiting with her husband and the applicant no. 1 - mother in law.Consequently, according to us, it would not be appropriate to quash thecrime and the criminal case to the extent of the applicant no. 1. 11.However, so far as the other applicants are concerned,they are brothers in law, wife of one of the brothers in law and the sisterin law, who is in fact married. Though obviously, they have beennamed in the FIR and even spoken about by the witnesses, all theallegations in the FIR, supplementary statements of all her maternalside relatives, namely, the parents and brothers are as vague as itcould be. While attributing role to these other applicants, they havebeen collectively alleged to have instigated the husband to subject therespondent no. 2 to cruelty. They themselves have not been attributedwith having taken part in subjecting her to cruelty. All the allegationsare in respect of behaviour of the husband.12.It would be sheer abuse of the process of law to makethese other applicants face the prosecution based on such vague andomnibus statements. This is a clear case of roping in the relatives ofthe husband. This is a case squarely covered by the observations inthe matter of Kahkashan Kausar V. State of Bihar; (2022) 6 SCC599. Application to the extent of applicants no. 2 to 6, therefore,deserves to be allowed.13.Application is partly allowed. 6 Cr. Appln. 1970 / 2019 14.Application to the extent of applicant no. 1 is rejected.15.Application to the extent of applicants no. 2 to 6 is allowed.Crime no. 326 of 2018 registered with Vivekanand Chowk PoliceStation, Latur for the offences punishable under section 498-A, 323, 34of the Indian Penal Code, consequent chargesheet no. 23 of 2019 andRegular Criminal Case No. 52 of 2019 pending on the file of thejurisdictional magistrate are quashed and set aside to the extent ofapplicants no. 2 to 6. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGEarp/