High Court
Legal Reasoning
1criwp No.1506-2022IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1506 OF 20221.Hurunnisa Begum Rafiquddin Shaikh,Age : 56 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o. Plot No.8-12-221, Lane No.4,Kaiser Colony, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. 2.Rafiquddin Abdul Razzak,Age : 65 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o. Plot No.8-12-221, Lane No.4,Kaiser Colony, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. 3.Shakeel Ahmed Rafeeque Ahmed,Age : 31 Years, Occu. : Private Job, R/o. Plot No.8-12-221, Lane No.4,Kaiser Colony, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. 4.Arshiya Nazneen W/o. Nasiroddin Kazi,Age : 40 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o. Plot No.9, Mujjafarnagar, N-13 HUDCO, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. 5.Nasiroddin Mukimoddin Kazi,Age : 46 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o. Plot No.9, Mujjafarnagar, N-13 HUDCO, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. 6.Hina W/o. Faisal Sayyad, Age : 32 Years, Occu. : Houshold, R/o. Plot No.9-3, Old Post Office Road, Partur, Tq. Partur, Dist. Jalna.
Legal Reasoning
2criwp No.1506-20227.Sayyad Faisal Ali Sayyad Fajal Ali, Age : 37 Years, Occu. : Private Job, R/o. Plot No.9-3, Old Post Office Road, Partur, Tq. Partur, Dist. Jalna. …. PetitionersVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Station Officer,Kranti Chowk Police Station, Dist. Aurangabad. 2.Hamida Khatoon W/o. Taufiq Ahemad,Age : 32 Years, Occu. : Household,C/o. Anwar Khan Hyat Khan, Beside Parvati Hospital, Near Monus Hotel, Opposite University Gate, Jaisingpura, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. …. Respondents....Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Z.H. FarooquiAddl. P.P. for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. P.S. Patil.…CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.Dated : 28th July 2025ORDER [PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.] :-1.Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners as well aslearned APP for the State.2.The present petition is filed for quashing the FirstInformation Report and charge-sheet in R.C.C. No.2201 of 2022,under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 3criwp No.1506-2022(hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”), pending before the learnedChief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, arising out of Crime bearingNo.0235 of 2022, registered with Kranti Chowk Police Station,Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad, dated 30.09.2022, for the offencespunishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “theIPC”) and Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights onMarriage) Act, 2019.3.Learned Advocate for the petitioners pointed out thereport dated 30.09.2022, in which respondent No.2/informantaverred that petitioner No.1 is her mother-in-law, petitioner No.2 isher father-in-law, petitioner No.3 is her brother-in-law, petitionerNos.4 and 6 are married sisters-in-law and petitioner Nos.5 and 7 arethe husbands of petitioner Nos.4 and 6, respectively. 4.The informant further averred in her report that, in theyear 2013, she got married with the son of petitioner Nos.1 and 2.After marriage, for about four years, she cohabited with her husbandat Kaisar Colony, Near Zakir Hussain School, Aurangabad and all thepetitioners were living with them under one roof. Thereafter, thepetitioners demanded Rs.20 Lakhs for the construction of house. Onthat count, they started to harass her by beating her with kicks and 4criwp No.1506-2022fist blows. Therefore, due to harassment caused to her, on the say ofher husband, she and her husband went to reside at Plot No.05,Shaktinagar, Maljipura, Behind Devpriya Hotel, Aurangabad. Thepetitioners used to come there and harass her on the count ofbringing of Rs.20 Lakhs from her mother and brother. They used tobeat her by slapping her. 5.The informant further averred in her report that, twoyears prior to lodging the report, her husband and petitioner Nos.3and 5 mortgaged her ten to twelve tolas of gold ornaments for themutation of the house at plot No.5, Maljipura, in the name of herhusband. From time to time, she made complaints to police stationand Women Grievance Redressal Cell. On 19.09.2022, around 02.30p.m., at Bharosa Cell, Sillekhana, when the hearing was going onbetween her, her husband and the petitioners, her husband utteredthe word "Talaq" three times before her brothers viz. Anwar Khan andAhmed Khan, and said that now he is freed, see how many wives hewill have. In the application made by her husband on 19.09.2022, hehad stated that he had given oral Talaq to her. Therefore, theinformant lodged the report. 6.Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that thepetitioners are falsely implicated in the crime. General and vague 5criwp No.1506-2022allegations have been made against the petitioners. Since theinception of marriage, the husband of informant has served at variousplaces for his job. The informant herself deserted her husband. Thereport lodged by the informant is not within limitation. If thepetitioners are compelled to face the trial, it would certainly be anabuse of the process of the Court. It is lastly prayed to allow thepetition.7.Learned APP for the State strongly opposed the petitionand submitted that there is strong evidence of cruelty against thepetitioners. Their names are mentioned in the report. The petitionerstreated the informant with cruelty by demanding an amount of Rs.20Lakhs. They compelled her to reside at her parents house. It is lastlyprayed to reject the petition.8.Here, it is apt to mention that a Division Bench of thisCourt in Musin Thengade and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.,(Criminal Application 887 of 2023, Decided on 29.01.2025), observedthat "a limitation for offence punishable under section 498-A of theIPC shall commence from the last act of cruelty. Offence under section498-A of the IPC is a continuing offence implies that each act ofcruelty would offer new starting point of limitation. Limitation forprosecution under Section 498-A does not continue for indefinite 6criwp No.1506-2022period. Such interpretation will render Section 468 of the Cr.P.Cnugatory or otiose for the purpose of Section 498-A of the IPC, whichdoes not appear to be the intention of legislature".9.We have perused the charge-sheet, particularly the reportand statements of witnesses. The informant states in her report thatshe got married in the year 2013 and cohabited with her husband andthe petitioners under one roof for four years at Kaisar Colony,Aurangabad and during the said period, the petitioners causedphysical and mental cruelty to her by demanding Rs.20 Lakhs. Shefurther states that she and her husband left that house after four yearsand started living separately at Maljipura, Aurangabad. Thepetitioners also used to visit there and abuse and beat her for bringingthe said amount from her parents. 10.The first incident of cruelty occurred during the fouryears following her marriage. The subsequent incident of cruelty wascaused to the informant when she and her husband left the companyof the petitioners after living four years with them. She ought to havelodged the report for the alleged cruelty caused to her immediately.However, she had not lodged the report. The informant states aboutthe incident of mortgaging her gold ornaments by her husband and 7criwp No.1506-2022petitioner Nos.3 and 5, for mutating the house property in the nameof her husband. 11.If we consider the last act of cruelty when the informantand her husband left the house at Kaisar Colony and started to resideat Maljipura, Aurangabad, where the petitioners caused cruelty toher, however, no specific date and time has been mentioned by theinformant about the alleged cruelty. As per Section 468 of the IPC,the period of limitation for lodging the report under Section 498-A isthree years and the punishment for it is three years. The presentreport has been lodged on 30.09.2022 and the last act of crueltycaused to the informant after four years of marriage, which wasperformed in the year 2013. Therefore, after four years from 2013 tilllodging of the FIR dated 30.09.2022, there is a lapse of more thanthree years period. As per Section 468 of Cr.P.C., for the offencepunishable under Section 498-A of IPC, the report should be lodgedwithin three years. The report against these petitioners is lodged afterthree years. Considering this important aspect and the observations inMusin Thengade (Supra), the report lodged by the informant isbarred by law of limitation. 12.There is allegation against the husband of informant that,on 19.09.2022, he has given oral Talaq to her and caused cruelty to 8criwp No.1506-2022her. However, he is not a party to this proceeding. Considering theabove reasons, if the petitioners are compelled to face the trial, itwould certainly be an abuse of the process of the Court. We are,therefore, inclined to exercise our powers under Section 482 of theCr.P.C. to quash the report and charge-sheet in the interest of justiceto prevent the abuse of the process of the Court against thepetitioners. The petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the followingorder.ORDERI)The Writ Petition is allowed.II)The First Information Report and charge-sheet in R.C.C.No.2201 of 2022, pending before the learned ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, arising out of Crimebearing No.0235 of 2022, registered with Kranti ChowkPolice Station, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad, dated30.09.2022, for the offences punishable under Sections498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of theIndian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the MuslimWomen (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019stands quashed against the petitioners. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ] JUDGE[ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGEasd