High Court
Legal Reasoning
1criappln No.3545-2023IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3545 OF 20231.Azhar Siraj Shaikh,Age : 34 Years, Occu. : Labour, R/o. Panchasil Nagar, Sadar Bajar, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 2.Siraj Abdulkadar Shaikh,Age : 63 Years, Occu. : Nil, R/o. Panchasil Nagar, Sadar Bajar, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.3.Ruksana Siraj Shaikh,Age : 51 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o. Panchasil Nagar, Sadar Bajar, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 4.Farhin Naimoddin Sayyad,Age : 28 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o. Gandhi Nagar, Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 5.Parvin Javed Shaikh,Age : 30 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o. Papnash Nagar, Near Govt. Milk Dairy, Osmanabad.…. ApplicantsVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough the Officer In Charge of Renapur Police Station, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur. 2.Sk. Kousar Azhar,Age : 27 Years, Occu. : Housework,R/o. Bhokramba, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur. …. Respondents 2criappln No.3545-2023....Advocate for Applicants : Mr. S.T. MahajanAPP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. G.A. KulkarniAdvocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Fayaz K. Patel.…CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.Dated : 26th June 2025ORDER [PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.] :-1.Heard learned Advocate for both sides as well as learnedAPP for the State.2.This is an application for quashing the First InformationReport (for short “the F.I.R.”) and charge-sheet in R.C.C. No.95 of2023, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (forshort “the Cr.P.C.”), pending before the learned Judicial MagistrateFirst Class, Renapur, Dist. Latur, arising out of Crime bearing No.0042of 2023, registered with Renapur Police Station, Dist. Latur, dated07.02.2023, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323,504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (forshort “the I.P.C.”) and Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection ofRights on Marriage) Act, 2019. 3.After hearing both sides, when this Court expresseddisinclination to grant any relief to applicant No.1/husband, learned 3criappln No.3545-2023Advocate for the applicants sought withdrawal of the application tothe extent of applicant No.1. Therefore, vide order dated 27.10.2023,this application is dismissed as withdrawn against applicant No.1. 4.Learned Advocate for the applicants pointed out thereport dated 07.02.2023, in which respondent No.2/informantaverred that applicant No.2 is her father-in-law, applicant No.3 is hermother-in-law and applicant Nos.4 and 5 are her sisters-in-law. 5.The informant further averred in her report that shemarried with the son of applicant Nos.2 and 3 on 02.02.2014.Initially, she was treated well for two years. She begot a daughter viz.Aliya. Thereafter, the applicants and her husband demandedRs.2 Lakhs to her to load the grocery items in their grocery shop. Theyfrequently abused her, beat her and starved her. Her parents wereconvincing the applicants and her husband that as soon as they getthe money, they will pay it and treat her properly. But, the applicantsand her husband were not paying heed to it. She made an applicationto the Women Grievance Redressal Cell, Ambajogai on 13.06.2016. Acompromise took place and she went for cohabitation. 6.The informant further averred in her report that herbrother was paid Rs.2 Lakhs to her husband. Her husband again 4criappln No.3545-2023demanded Rs.3 Lakhs and harassed her. She was hopeful that aftersome days, the applicants and her husband would behave properlywith her. During her cohabitation, she begot a son viz. Mohd. Ifrazand a daughter viz. Anabiya. Thereafter also, her husband continuedharassment to her. He was harassing her on the count of complaintmade by her to the Women Cell, Ambajagoi and slapped her on herright ear. She lodged the report with Ambajogai Police Station videC.R. No.132 of 2022, for the offences punishable under Sections 325,323, 504, 506 of the I.P.C. 7.The informant further averred in her report that,thereafter, she kept her three children with her husband and went toreside to her parents house. Applicant Nos.2 and 3 and her husbandcame there and said that if she did not come for cohabitation, theywill not allow her to see the children. They also abused andthreatened her and she went back for cohabitation. On 18.12.2022, atabout 07.30 p.m., her brother Zahir and maternal aunt Rabiya Shaikhfetched her to the house of her husband for cohabitation. But she wasnot allowed to enter into the house. That time, the applicants and herhusband abused and beat her. Her husband uttered word 'Talaq' forthree times and said that now the marital tie has broken. Her threechildren were taken away from her. The gold ornaments on her 5criappln No.3545-2023persons were also taken out. Applicant Nos.4 and 5 beat her. On02.01.2023, she made a complaint to the Women Grievance RedressalCell, Latur. However, the matter could not be compromised.Therefore, she lodged the report on 07.02.2023.8.Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted thatapplicant Nos.2 to 5 are falsely implicated in the crime. General andvague allegations are made against these applicants. Though thespecific incidents of cruelty are stated by the informant in the reportand by the witnesses in their statements, the fact of cruelty is notestablishing from the entire charge-sheet against these applicants. Nomedical certificate is produced on record to prove the alleged beating.False allegations of cruelty are made against these applicants. Theessential ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 498-A,323, 504, 506 of the I.P.C. are not establishing against theseapplicants. If they are compelled to face the trial, it would certainly bean abuse of process of Court. It is lastly prayed to allow theapplication.9.Learned APP for the State strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that there is strong evidence of crueltyagainst applicant Nos.2 to 5. Their names are mentioned in the F.I.R. 6criappln No.3545-2023These applicants treated the informant with cruelty by demandingRs.2 Lakhs for loading the grocery items in their grocery shop andcaused physical and mental cruelty. They compelled her to reside ather parents house. It is lastly prayed to reject the application.10.Learned Advocate for respondent No.2/informant alsostrongly opposed the application and submitted that applicant Nos.2to 5 are involved in the crime of treating the informant with cruelty.The specific incidents are stated by the informant in the report thatthese applicants treated the informant with cruelty by demandingRs.2 Lakhs for loading the grocery items in their grocery shop. Thenames of these applicants are mentioned in the F.I.R. There arestatements of witnesses corroborating with the version of theinformant. There is strong evidence against these applicants toproceed further with the trial. Therefore, the application deserves tobe rejected as there is reliable evidence against these applicants toestablish the requisites of offences punishable under Sections 498-A,323, 504, 506 of the I.P.C. He prayed to reject the application.11.In the context of this case, it would be relevant to referthe following authorities : 7criappln No.3545-2023i) Mohammad Wajid and Another Vs. State of U.P. andAnother, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 951; 2023 INSC 683,wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the law asfollows :-“34….. it will not be just enough for the Court to lookinto the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone forthe purpose of ascertaining whether the necessaryingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosedor not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Courtowes a duty to look into many other attendingcircumstances emerging from the record of the case overand above the averments and, if need be, with due careand circumspection try to read in between the lines. TheCourt while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need notrestrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empoweredto take into account the overall circumstances leading tothe initiation/registration of the case as well as thematerials collected in the course of investigation….”ii)CBI Vs. Aryan Singh, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC379, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows :-“10.As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage ofdischarge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings,while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial.” 8criappln No.3545-2023iii)Kim Wansoo Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reportedin 2025 SCC Online SC 17, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inpara.9 of the judgment, has held as under :“9.In State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, thisCourt again held that where an FIR did not disclose thecommission of an offence without anything being addedor subtracted from the recitals thereof, the said FIR couldbe quashed.12.We have perused the charge-sheet, particularly the reportand statements of witnesses. The witnesses have stated similar factsas stated by the informant in the report. Admittedly, applicant Nos.4and 5 are married sisters-in-law and they are residing at theirmatrimonial houses with their husbands at Beed and Osmanabad,respectively. General and vague allegations without stating specificincident of cruelty caused to her on the part of applicant Nos.4 and 5are not sustainable. The essential ingredients of Sections 498-A, 323,504, 506 of the I.P.C. to constitute the cruelty, etc. are notestablishing from the charge-sheet against applicant Nos.4 and 5.13.Applicant Nos.2 and 3 were residing with the informantand her husband. The informant has specifically stated in her reportthat applicant Nos.2 and 3 were also demanding Rs.2 Lakhs for 9criappln No.3545-2023loading the grocery items in their grocery shop. She made a complaintagainst them on 13.06.2016. There is material against applicant Nos.2and 3 regarding cruelty caused to the informant. The essentialingredients of Section 498-A are establishing against them. Therefore,they are not entitled to get the benefit of quashing the report andcharge-sheet. 14.Considering all the aspects, above reasons and law laiddown in the authorities cited supra, if applicant Nos.4 and 5 arecompelled to face the trial, it would certainly be an abuse of processof Court. We are, therefore, inclined to exercise our powers underSection 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the report and charge-sheet in theinterest of justice to prevent the abuse of process of Court againstapplicant Nos.4 and 5. The application deserves to be partly allowed.Hence, the following order.ORDERI)The application is partly allowed.II)The application is rejected against applicant Nos.2 and 3.II)The First Information Report and charge-sheet in R.C.C.No.95 of 2023, pending before the learned JudicialMagistrate First Class, Renapur, Dist. Latur, arising outof Crime bearing No.0042 of 2023, registered with
Legal Reasoning
10criappln No.3545-2023Renapur Police Station, Dist. Latur, dated 07.02.2023,for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323,504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian PenalCode, 1860 and Section 4 of the Muslim Women(Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 standsquashed against applicant Nos.4 and 5. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ] JUDGE[ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGEasd