High Court
Legal Reasoning
cran3089.23-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3089 OF 2023 1. Shaikh Ather S/o. Shaikh Moiz,Age 32 years, Occ. Service,R/o. Block No. 41, MHB Colony, Champa Chowk, Aurangabad, 2. Shaikh Moiz S/o. Mohd. Abdul VahedAge: 62 years, Occ. Pensioner,R/o. As Above, 3. Masrat W/o Shaikh MoizAge:-55 years, Occ. Household,R/o. As above. 4. Afroz Anjum W/o Shahnawaz, Age:-29 years, Occ. Household,R/o. Lalit Kala Bhawan, Juna Usmanpura, Dist. Aurangabad. 5. Firdous d/o Shaikh Moiz,Age:- 22 years, Occ. Student,R/o. As applicant 1 to 3 ...Applicants Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Jinsi Police station, Tq. Aurangabad Dist. Aurangabad. 2. Salmanoor W/o Shaikh Ather. Age: 27 Years. Occ. Nil, R/o. Dilras Colony, Aamkhasmaidan, Aurangabad Dist. Aurangabad....Respondents …..Mr. Md. Asif Iqbal Siddiqui M.T. advocate for the applicantsMr. G.A.Kulkarni, advocate respondent No.1Mr. S.V. Jadhavar h/f Mr. Saeed S. Shaikh, advocate for respondentNo.2 ….. cran3089.23-2- CORAM:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE OF RESERVING THEORDER: 19.03.2025DATE OF PRONOUNCING ORDER: 28.03.2025O R D E R (PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) :- 1.Heard learned advocates for both the sides.2.This is an application filed for quashing of the FirstInformation Report (for short “report”) vide C.R. No. 206 of 2023registered with Jinsi police station, District Aurangabad for theoffences punishable under Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 r.w. 34 ofIndian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”) and under Sections 3 and 4 ofDowry Prohibition Act, 1961 with consequential criminal case bearingR.C.C. No. 2786 of 2023, pending before the J.M.F.C. Court No.2,Aurangabad.3,The informant - respondent No.2 alleged in the report thatshe was married with applicant No.1 on 9.11.2017 at Aurangabad.12½ Tolas gold ornaments were given to her in that marriage. Cashof Rs.50,000/- was also paid to the husband of the informant forpurchasing gold ring and clothes for him. For about two months, theinformant was treated well by the applicants. Thereafter, applicantNo.1 husband, applicant Nos. 2 and 3 in-laws, applicant Nos. 4 and 5 cran3089.23-3- sisters-in-law of the informant started to harass her by abusing andinsulting her. When the informant questioned them as to why they areharassing her, they said that dowry was not given in her marriage.They also slapped and beaten her by fist and kick blows. She couldbear that cruelty for about one year. She begotten a male child on10.01.2019. Because of cesarean, the doctor advised her for bedrest, however, within three months, she was taken back by herhusband. The informant informed that fact to her father and otherrelatives. They came to convince the applicants but they were notconvinced. On the contrary, they demanded Rs.5,00,000/- forpurchasing the car. They said that they will not allow her to stay withthem. They kept all articles with them and expelled her from thehouse on 24.12.2019 by beating her. Since then she is residing withher parents. 4.The informant further averred that she was waiting that theapplicants will come to fetch her but they did not come to fetch her.Therefore, she lodged the complaint with Women GrievanceRedressal Cell in the office of the Police Commissioner, Aurangabadon 3.6.2023. The police tried to convince the applicants. Before thepolice, the applicants were saying that they are ready to take backthe informant for cohabitation but after coming at house, they saidthat unless they paid Rs.5,00,000/- for purchasing the car, they will cran3089.23-4- not take her back for cohabitation. Therefore, she lodged the reporton 25.7.2023. 5.Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that theapplicants are falsely implicated in the crime. There is no specificevidence against the applicants that they treated the informant withcruelty by abusing, beating and demanding Rs.5,00,000/- forpurchase of car. Learned advocate for the applicants furthersubmitted that false report is lodged after deliberation. He pointed outthe statements of witnesses and submitted that those are stereotypeand the contents of it are similar to the report. He pointed out thecontents in the case filed by the informant under the DomesticViolence Act bearing P.W.D.V.A. No. 497 of 2020, in which she hasclaimed maintenance and other reliefs. He submitted that in thatcomplaint the alleged demand of Rs.5,00,000/- to purchase the carby the applicants is nowhere stated by the informant. He submittedthat the applicant No.4 is married sister-in-law of the informant. Sheis residing at another place i.e. at Lalit Kala Bhavan, old Osmanpura,Aurangabad. The applicants are falsely implicated in the crime. Theessential ingredients of sections Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 r.w.34 of I.P.C. are not establishing against the applicants. The allegedcruelty on account of demand of dowry by the applicants is also notspecific and certain to constitute the offences under sections 3 and 4 cran3089.23-5- of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. He therefore, prayed to quash thereport and the charge sheet against the applicants to prevent theabuse of process of court.6.Learned A.P.P. for respondent No.1 State strongly opposedthe application by submitting that the applicants have treated theinformant with cruelty, physically as well as mentally for nonfulfillment of the demand of Rs.5,00,000/- for purchase of the car.The informant has specifically mentioned the names of the applicantsin the report and each of them are involved in the crime of cruelty.The learned A.P.P. submitted that considering the roles attributed tothe applicants, they cannot be exonerated from the criminal liabilityunder Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and undersections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It is lastly prayed toreject the application. 7.Learned advocate for respondent No.2-informant submittedthat the applicants have treated the informant with cruelty. Thenames of the applicants are mentioned in the report with specific roleattributed to them in respect of demand of Rs.5,00,000/- forpurchase of car and due to non fulfillment of that demand, theinformant has been harassed frequently by the applicants. Theapplicants have treated the informant with cruelty, which constitute cran3089.23-6- the offences referred in the F.I.R. Learned advocate lastly prayed toreject 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 exercisingits 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 take cran3089.23-7- into 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 report and the charge sheet. Thestatements of witnesses, who are relatives of the informant aremostly similar to the report lodged by the informant. The allegationsin the report are general in nature and no specific incident is quotedabout the alleged cruelty, as stated by the informant and thewitnesses. The role of the applicants is also not specifically stated bythe informant as to when and how exactly the applicants have treatedthe informant with cruelty by demanding Rs.5,00,000/- to her. Thegeneral, vague and omnibus allegations are made against theapplicants. Their specific role with overt act is not stated. Thoughthe incident dated 24.12.2019 is stated, it is not stated, which articlesare given in the marriage, which were taken away by each of theapplicants and which applicant has specifically demandedRs.5,00,000/- to her for purchase of car.10.The report is lodged on 25.7.2023 and applicant No.1 hasfiled the case for restitution of conjugal rights as per section 281 ofthe Mohammedan Law on 3.12.2020. The P.W.D.V.A. Case No.497 of 2020 was filed by the informant on 11.12.2020. From thesethree dates, it can clearly be inferred that the report is lodged afterfiling of the said proceedings, in the year 2023. If all these facts are
Legal Reasoning
cran3089.23-8- considered together, the essential ingredients of Sections 498-A,323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. are not establishing against theapplicants. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case andaforesaid reasons, we are of the view that compelling the applicantsto face the trial would certainly be an abuse of process of the court.We are therefore, inclined to exercise our powers under section 482of the Cr.P.C., in the interest of justice for quashing the report and theconsequential criminal case lodged and registered against theapplicants to prevent the abuse of process of the court as per the lawlaid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kim WansooVs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (supra). The applicationdeserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order:-O R D E RI.Criminal application stands allowed.II.The F.I.R. vide C.R. No. 206 of 2023 registered with Jinsipolice station, District Aurangabad for the offencespunishable under Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 r.w. 34ofI.P.C. and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 and the consequential criminal case being R.C.C. No.2786 of 2023 pending before the J.M.F.C. Court No.2,Aurangabad, stand quashed. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)rlj/