High Court · 2021
Legal Reasoning
cria-1718.211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1718 OF 20211) Shoeb Mohammed Khan S/o Vali Mohammed Khan, Age-33 years, Occu:Service, R/o-New Aqsa Masjid, Shahen Shah Nagar, Beed, Tq. and Dist-Beed. (As per order dated 18th August 2021 Application of applicant No.1 came to be dismissed as withdrawn),2) Dilshad Bi W/o Vali Mohammed Khan, Age-61 years, Occu:Nil, R/o-New Aqsa Masjid, Shahen Shah Nagar, Beed, Tq. and Dist-Beed,3) Ameer S/o Vali Mohammed Khan, Age-42 years, Occu:Service, R/o-Kazi Nagar, Balepir, Beed, Tq. and Dist-Beed. 4) Malik Mohammed Khan S/o Vali Mohammed Khan, Age-30 years, Occu:Business, R/o-New Aqsa Masjid, Shahen Shah Nagar, Beed, Tq. and Dist-Beed,5) Naziya W/o Feroz Shaikh, Age-36 years, Occu:Housewife, R/o-Kazi Nagar, Balepir, Beed, Tq. and Dist-Beed,6) Shamim Bano W/o Kadir Shaikh, Age-39 years, Occu:Housewife, R/o-Nurani Colony, Tq-Jamkhed, Dist-Ahmednagar,
Legal Reasoning
cria-1718.2127) Shabana Afreen W/o Junaid Shaikh, Age-26 years, Occu:Housewife, R/o-Near Amer Kirana, New Shahen Shah Nagar, Beed, Tq. and Dist-Beed. 8) Yasmin W/o Zaker Mohammed, Age-32 years, Occu:Housewife, R/o-Sahara Colony, Beed, Tq. and Dist-Beed,9) Mohammed Zakir S/o Mohammed Taher, Age-35 years, R/o-Sahara Colony, Beed, Tq. and Dist-Beed,10) Shaikh Feroz S/o Shaikh Jafar, Age-40 years, Occu:Business, R/o-Kazi Nagar, Balepir, Beed, Tq. and Dist-Beed. ...APPLICANTS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Beed City Police Station, Beed,2) Sana W/o Shoeb Khan, Age-24 years, R/o-Ghat Nandur, Tq-Kej, Dist-Beed. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Mohammed Aseem Advocate h/f. Mr. Sayyed Tauseef Yaseen Advocate for Applicant Nos.2 to 10. As per order dated 18th August 2021 Application of applicant No.1 came to be dismissed as withdrawn. Mr. A.R. Kale, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 – State. Mr. Joslyn A. Menzes Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... cria-1718.213 CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND R.W. JOSHI, JJ.DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 13th NOVEMBER 2024DATE OF PRONOUNCING ORDER : 6th DECEMBER 2024 ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] :1.Present Application has been filed for quashing the FirstInformation Report (for short “the FIR”) vide Crime No.95 of2021 registered with Beed City Police Station, Beed on 23rd May2021 and thereafter by way of amendment, for quashing thecharge-sheet arising out of that, pending before the learnedJudicial Magistrate First Class, Beed, for the offence punishableunder Sections 498-A, 377, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34of the Indian Penal Code. 2.It will not be out of place to mention at the beginning itselfthat when this Court was not inclined to grant any relief toapplicant No.1 – husband, learned Advocate for the applicantssought withdrawal of the application as against applicant No.1and therefore, by order dated 18th August 2021 the applicationas against applicant No.1 – Shoeb Mohammed Khan S/o Vali cria-1718.214Mohammed Khan came to be dismissed as withdrawn. Further asregards applicant No.2 – mother-in-law is concerned, learnedAdvocate for the applicants has made a statement that duringthe pendency of this Application, applicant No.2 has expired.Under such circumstance the case has abated as againstapplicant No.2.3.The matter proceeded for the reliefs claimed by applicantNos. 3 to 10.4.Heard learned Advocate Mr. Mohammed Aseem holding forlearned Advocate Mr. Sayyed Tauseef Yaseen for applicants,learned APP Mr. A.R. Kale for respondent No.1 – State andlearned Advocate Mr. Joslyn A. Menzes for respondent No.2. Inorder to cut short, it can be stated that the learned Advocatesfor respective parties have argued in support of theircontentions.5.As aforesaid, the Application stood dismissed as withdrawnas against applicant No.1 and the case is abated againstapplicant No.2, we are not considering the allegations and theevidence collected against them. We are only considering the cria-1718.215allegations and evidence as stated to be against the presentapplicant Nos. 3 to 10. Applicant Nos.3 and 4 are thebrothers-in-law and applicant Nos. 5 to 8 are the sisters-in-lawof respondent No.2. Applicant Nos. 9 and 10 are the husbands ofapplicant Nos.8 and 5, respectively. Admittedly, applicant Nos. 5and 10 are residing at different place i.e. in the house ofapplicant No.10 and applicant Nos. 8 and 9 are also residing ata different place i.e. in the house of applicant No.9, though inthe same city. Applicant No.6 is residing at Jamkhed, District-Ahmednagar and applicant Nos.4 and 7 were residing in thematrimonial home of respondent No.2. 6.As regards the allegations against applicant Nos.3, 4, 6and 7, are concerned, respondent No.2 has stated that on oneday she had quarrel with applicant No.6 on domestic reason andat that time her husband i.e. applicant No.1 had assaulted herresulting in fracture to her leg. Dispute on account of domesticreason cannot be a ground of cruelty. As regards applicantNos.3, 4, 9 and 10 are concerned, absolutely there are no overtacts. Even so far as married sisters-in-law are concerned,respondent No.2 says that whenever they used to come to hermatrimonial home, they used to say that informant is unable to cria-1718.216prepare good food and whenever they comes she makes thevegetables spicy, without putting salt. These are in fact verytrifle issues, daily wear and tear in marital life, which cannot beconsidered as cruelty as defined under Section 498-A of theIndian Penal Code. At the end, then she made generalallegations and even by exaggerating she says that on 15thNovember 2019 around 11.00 p.m. when refused to haveunnatural sex with husband, he told the said fact to all the otheraccused persons on the next day and then they had abused andassaulted her and then tried to burn her alive. Important point tobe noted is that she says that she was admitted in the hospitalon 16th November 2019 by her maternal uncle, but there appearsto be no attempt to lodge the report alleging that these personshave tried to commit murder of the informant. In the policepapers, we could see the discharge card, wherein it is stated thatshe was admitted in the hospital on 16th November 2019 anddischarged on 19th November 2019. The history has been takenas assault with injuries and there is also a note that the patientwas advised C.T. Brain but patient was not willing for furtherinvestigation. That means, the informant herself has notdisclosed the real incident even to the doctor, but now wants totake advantage. Present FIR has been lodged on 23rd May 2021. cria-1718.217Therefore, it can be seen that with some mala fides entire familyhas been roped in and therefore, this is a fit case where weshould exercise our inherent powers to quash and set aside theFIR and the proceedings against applicant Nos. 3 to 10. Hence,we pass following order:- O R D E R(I)The Application stands partly allowed.(II)The Application as against applicant No.2- Dilshad Bi W/o Vali Mohammed Khan standsdisposed of as abated.(III)The Application as against applicant Nos. 3 to10 stands allowed.(IV)The proceedings of the charge-sheet pendingbefore the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,Beed, arising out of First Information Report videCrime No.95 of 2021 registered with Beed CityPolice Station, Beed on 23rd May 2021, for theoffence punishable under Sections 498-A, 377, 323,504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian PenalCode, stands quashed and set aside as againstapplicant Nos.3 to 10 i.e. 3) Ameer S/o ValiMohammed Khan, 4) Malik Mohammed Khan 5)Naziya W/o Feroz Shaikh, 6) Shamim Bano W/o cria-1718.218Kadir Shaikh, 7) Shabana Afreen W/o JunaidShaikh, 8) Yasmin W/o Zaker Mohammed, 9)Mohammed Zakir S/o Mohammed Taher and 10)Shaikh Feroz S/o Shaikh Jafar. [R.W. JOSHI] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGEasb/DEC24