High Court
Facts
cran3234.24-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3234 OF 2024 1.Syed Galib Ali Syed Hyder Ali Hashmi,Ae 68 years, Occ. Retired2.Syeda Sageerabegum Syed Galib Ali Hashmi,Age 63 years, Occ. Housewife3.Sayyed Parvez Ali SayyedGalib Ali HashmiAge 44 years, Occ. Business,4.Syed Shahed Shed Galib HashmiAge 43 years, Occ. Private ServiceAll R/o. Vikas Nagar, Degloor Road,Udgir, Tq. Udgir, district Latur 5.Khaled Galib Ali HashmiAge 40 years, Occ. Private serviceR/o. C/o. Prof Shafa Sir,Near Aqsa Masjid, Shahinsha NagarBeed, Tq. and district Beed 6.Sumeraa Begum Iqbaluddin SiddiquiAge 45 years, Occ. HousewifeR/o. TehsilColony, Near BSNL Tower,Majalgaon Road, Pathri, Tq. Pathri, District Parbhani7.Durrani Zohara Khan Shafa Mohammad KhanAge 34 years, Occ. HousewifeR/o. Near Aqsa Masjid, Shahinsha NagarBeed, Tq. and district Beed 8.Farha Begum Shaikh Sameer,Age 32 years, Occ. HousewifeR/o. Shahu Nagar, Mahehubiya MasjidBeed, Tq. and district Beed ...Applicants
Legal Reasoning
cran3234.24-7- its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC orArticle 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itselfonly to the stage of a case but is empowered to takeinto account the overall circumstances leading to theinitiation/registration of the case as well as materialscollected in the course of investigation…..”9.We have perused the charge sheet, particularly the report andthe statements of witnesses. The witnesses have stated similar factsas has been stated by the informant. There are no specificallegations against the present applicants regarding demand ofmoney of Rs.15,00,000/- for securing a job for the husband of theinformant. As far as these applicants are concerned, the allegationsare made by the informant in the report that on 25.5.2022, that all theapplicants drove her out of the house asking her to bring an amountof Rs.15,00,000/-. These allegations against the present applicantsprima facie appear to be vague and general. In our view, it isimpossible to make a demand of Rs.15,00,000/- in a chorus by allthese applicants. Therefore, on the basis of general and vagueallegations of cruelty made against the applicants, the essentialingredients of Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. arenot established against the applicants. Therefore, on such vagueand general allegations of cruelty etc. compelling the applicants toface the trial, would be an abuse of the process of the court. Thecase is made out for exercise of our powers under section 482 of the cran3234.24-8- Cr.P.C. We are therefore, inclined to allow the application, in theinterest of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of theCourt. Hence, the following order:-O R D E R I.The application stands allowed. II.The F.I.R. No. No. 171 of 2024 registered with MajalgaonRural police Station, Tq. Majalgaon, District Beed, for theoffences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w.34 of the I.P.C. and the consequential criminal proceedingbearing R.C.C. No. 207 of 2024 pending before the JudicialMagistrate, First Class, Majalgaon, District Beed are quashedand set aside to the extent of present applicants. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)rlj/
Arguments
cran3234.24-2- Versus 1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Officer in chargeMajalgaon Rural Police Station District Beed 2.Lubna Fatema Hamed Hashmi Syed,Age 32 years, Occ. HousewifeR/o. Vikas Nagar, Degloor Road Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur Presently residing at Patrud Tq. Majalgaon, District Beed...Respondents …..Mr. K.P. Rodge, Advocate for the applicantsMs. Rashmi P. Gour, A.P.P. for the respondent No.1Ms. T.S. Raut h/f Mr. S.J. Salunke, Advocate for respondent No.2. ….. CORAM:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATED:10th JULY, 2025 O R D E R (PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) :- 1.Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 2.This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) for quashing ofFirst Information Report (for short the “F.I.R.”) No. 171 of 2024registered with Majalgaon Rural police Station, Tq. Majalgaon,District Beed, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323,504 and 506 r.w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “theI.P.C.”) and the consequential criminal proceeding bearing R.C.C. cran3234.24-3- No. 207 of 2024 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,Majalgaon, District Beed. 3.The respondent No.1/informant averred in the report thatapplicant Nos. 1 and 2 are her parents in law, applicant Nos. 3 to 5are her brothers-in-law and applicant Nos. 6 to 8 are her sisters-in-law. 4.The informant averred in the report that she married son ofapplicant Nos. 1 and 2 on 24.11.2013. After the marriage, she wastreated well for a period of three years. She begot a son Ashhad, 10years old and a daughter Ehanaf, 5 years old. Thereafter, theapplicants and other accused started to ask her to bring an amount ofRs.15,00,000/- from her parents. The applicants and other accusedstarted to beating her and keep her on starvation. She informed herparents and maternal uncle about the cruelty caused to her. Theytried to convince the applicants and other accused persons that theirfinancial conditions is poor and they are not having that muchamount, but the conduct of the applicants and co-accused did notchanged. The informant was hopeful that in future the situationwould improve and therefore, she continued to bear the cruelty andcohabiting with her husband. The informant had informed herparents and maternal uncle about that cruelty caused to her. cran3234.24-4- However, they used to convince her and send her back forcohabitation. The applicant Nos. 6 to 8 are the sisters-in-law of theinformant who were frequently visiting the house of the informant astheir children were residing there for eduction purpose. At that time,they used to harass her physically and mentally. They were beatingand asking the informant to bring money from her parents forsecuring job to her husband.5.The informant further averred that on 25.5.2022 theapplicants and other accused, stated that till she brings the amountfrom her parents, she should not reside in their house and by sayingso they abused and beat her and threatened that if she comeswithout money they will eliminate her. They also took away the goldand silver ornaments from her person and she was expelled from thehouse alongwith her two children. Therefore, she lodged the report. 6.Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that theapplicants are no way concerned with the allegations made by theinformant. The applicant Nos. 6 to 8 are married sisters-in-law of theinformant and they reside at their respective matrimonial places.There are vague and baseless allegations made against theapplicants, without quoting the specific role of these applicants. Thedate and time of allegation of abuses, beating at the instance of the cran3234.24-5- present applicants is also not attributed. All allegations are vagueand general in nature. There is a delay in lodging the report. From thecharge sheet, it appears that all the witnesses whose statements arerecorded are from the parental side of the informant. The saidstatements of the witnesses cannot prove that the harassment andcruelty has been caused to the informant at the hands of theapplicants. The applicants are close relatives of the husband of theinformant and therefore, they have been falsely implicated in thecrime without any substantial basis. Therefore, he prayed to quashthe proceedings. 7.Learned A.P.P. for respondent No.1 State and learnedadvocate for respondent No.2 strongly opposed the application bysubmitting that the applicants have treated the informant with cruelty.There was a demand of an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- for securing agovernment job for the husband of the informant. On account ofnon-fulfillment of the said demand, the applicants have treated theinformant with cruelty. Though the applicant Nos. 6 to 8 are residingat different places, they frequently visited the house of the informant’sin-laws of the informant on the pretext of meeting their children,staying there for educational purposes and during such visits, theyused to harass the informant. The specific roles have been attributedto the applicants by clearly mentioning their names, therefore, the cran3234.24-6- applicants cannot be exonerated from the criminal liability arisedagainst them under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 r.w. 34 of theI.P.C. It is lastly prayed to reject the application. 8.It would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’bleSupreme court in the case of Kim Wansoo Vs. State of UttarPradesh & Ors., reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 17 , in which theHon’ble Supreme Court, in paras 9 and 11 of the judgment, has heldas under :“9.In State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, this Courtagain held that where an FIR did not disclose the commissionof an offence without anything being added or subtracted fromthe recitals thereof, the said FIR could be quashed.11.In the contextual situation, it is also relevant to refer tothe decision of this Court in Mohammad Wajid and Anotherv. State of U.P. and Anr., whereunder this Court, in so far asit is relevant, held thus :-“34…….. it will not be just enough for the Court tolook into the averments made in the FIR/complaintalone for the purpose of ascertaining whether thenecessary ingredients to constitute the allegedoffence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatiousproceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into manyother attending circumstances emerging from recordof the case over and above the averments and, ifneed be, with due care and circumspection try toread in between the lines. The Court while exercising