High Court

Legal Reasoning

cran4481.23-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4481 OF 20231.Shaikh Majeed Shaikh Musa,Age 44 years, Occ. Business,(Brother in law of R.No.2) 2.Rizwana Begum Shaikh MajeedAge 38 years, Occ. Housewife(Sister in law of R.No.2) 3.Shaikh Baseed Shaikh MusaAge 43 years, Occ. Business,(Brother in law of R.No.2) 4.Shama Begum Shaikh BaseedAge 34 years, Occ. Housewife,(Sister in law of R.No.2) All R/o. Hamidiya Colony,Near Khizra Masjid, Itwara NandedTq. and district Nanded ...Applicants Versus 1.The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station OfficerNanded Police station, NandedTq. and district Nanded 2.Uzma Khan w/o Shaikh MujahidAge 32 years, Occ. HousewifeR/o. C/o. Zahed Khan, 8-4-331,Siddhanathpuri ChaufalaPani Ki Taki, Itwara, NandedTq. And district Nanded ...Respondents …..Mr. Sudheer Zambare, advocate for the applicants Mrs. Rashmi P. Gour, A.P.P. for respondent No.1 ….. CORAM:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATED:20th MARCH, 2025 cran4481.23-2- O R D E R (PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) :- 1.Heard learned advocate for both sides.2.This is an application filed for quashing of the criminal casebearing R.C.C. No. 917 of 2020 pending before the learned ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Nanded, District Nanded arising out of the F.I.R.vide C.R. No. 415 of 2020 registered with Nanded Police Station,District Nanded, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,109, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of Indian Penal Code.3.The informant – respondent No.2 averred in the report thatapplicant Nos.1 and 3 are brothers-in-law of the informant, whereasapplicant Nos.2 and 4 are sisters-in-law of the informant. Theinformant further averred in the report that she married with thebrother of the applicants on 22.7.2018. Initially, for four months, shewas treated well. Thereafter, the applicants and husband of theinformant started to harass her by saying that in her marriage, themotor cycle was not given. The marriage was not properly performedby incurring more expenses. The applicants and her husband usedto keep her on starvation as the motor cycle was not given. Theywere beating her and threatening to kill her. They demanded an cran4481.23-3- amount of Rs.15,00,000/- for opening electrical shop. All theseapplicants frequently made phone calls to her husband asking him todemand an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- required for opening newelectrical shop and instigating to ill-treat her.4.The informant further averred that on 4.3.2019 in order tostart the electrical shop, the applicants and her husband slapped herand dragged her out of the house. They said unless she bringsRs.15,00,000/- she should not come to their house. Since then she isresiding with her parents.5.On 27.11.2019, the informant begotten a girl child. Sheinformed that fact to her husband and the applicants but they saidthat unless she brings the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- they will notallow her and her daughter to come to their house and cut the phonecall. The informant therefore, lodged the report on 14.6.2020.Accordingly, the crime was registered against the applicants and herhusband.6.Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that nospecific allegations are made against the applicants in the report. Allallegations are omnibus and general in nature. The report is filedafter seven months of the alleged incident of cruelty. No report was cran4481.23-4- filed when the informant was in her matrimonial home. 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. All these applicants areclose relatives of the husband of the informant and only in order toimplicate the entire family and the relatives, the report has beenlodged, when there is no evidence against them. He further submitsthat the applicants have been falsely implicated in the crime.Therefore, he prayed to quash the report as well as the charge sheet.7.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. There wasconsistent demand of Rs.15,00,000/- for opening new electrical shop.The names of the applicants are mentioned in the report. The specificroles by mentioning their names are attributed to each of theapplicants. They cannot be exonerated from the criminal liabilityunder Sections 498-A, 109, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. It is lastlyprayed 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 Uttar cran4481.23-5- Pradesh & 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 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 report and the charge sheet. Thereare statements of witnesses, particularly the parents of the informant cran4481.23-6- and other relatives. They have also made similar allegations in theirstatements that the applicants treated the informant with cruelty andinstigated her husband to beat her for demanding Rs.15,00,000/- foropening new electrical shop. On bare perusal of the statements ofwitnesses, it is clear that the vague, general and omnibus allegationsare made against the applicants. The last incident though stated tohave occurred on 4.3.2019, about it also there are general allegationsof beating by the applicants. No injury certificate is produced onrecord. The vague and omnibus allegations made against applicantsare not sustainable. There are allegations against the husband of theinformant. No specific incident is stated as to when each of theapplicants have treated the informant with cruelty. There is noevidence of common intention though Section 34 of I.P.C. is invoked.From the report, essential ingredients of Sections 498-A, 109, 323,504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. are not establishing. As held in the case ofKim Wansoo Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (supra) there is nosubstance in the report and the charge sheet. In such facts andcircumstances of the case, if the applicants are compelled to face thetrial, it would certainly be an abuse of process of Court. Therefore, itis necessary to invoke our inherent powers under section 482 of theCr.P.C. for quashing of the report and the criminal case. Therefore,in the interest of justice, we are inclined to allow the application.Hence, we pass the following order:- cran4481.23-7- O R D E RI.Criminal application stands allowed.II.The R.C.C. No. 917 of 2020 pending before the learnedChief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded, District Nanded arisingout of the F.I.R. vide C.R. No. 415 of 2020 registered withNanded Police Station, District Nanded, for the offencespunishable under Sections 498-A, 109, 323, 504, 506 r.w.34 of Indian Penal Code, are quashed as againstapplicants. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)rlj/