Farheen v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

applicant, applicant is seeking to quash FIR in Crime No. 44/2010 registered with Police Station, Tamgaon, District Buldana and process issued by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangrampur pursuant thereto as against the applicant.

Respondent no.2 Asmabi on 24.4.2010 lodged report with respondent no. 1 that she was married to Bismillakhan on

22.5.2003 and out of wedlock, she is begotten with two children. She came to know that her husband had developed illicit relations with one Nagma, his colleague in the school and on that count, she was being harassed and ill-treated. Not only this, her husband started asking her to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her parents. The allegation against the applicant is that on

24.4.2010 when complainant’s husaband and Nagma started beating her, applicant held her hair and beat her and that she 2 advised Bismilla that complainant be taken to home and she be set on fire to get permanent rid of her. It is also alleged that applicant along with Nagma tried to obtain complainant’s signature on blank stamp paper. On the basis of the said report, police have registered offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant and others.

Main limb of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC could not have been registered against the applicant inasmuch as applicant is neither relative of husband of respondent no. 2 nor the allegations made in the report disclose ingredients of the offence under Section 498A against the applicant. It is pointed that the other offences viz. under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC are non-cognizable offences and neither respondent no. 1 nor the learned Magistrate could have taken cognizance of the same except in accordance with the procedure prescribed in that behalf. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that private complaint filed by respondent no.2 against her husband others has been dismissed by the Court and no cognizance of the report containing the same allegations should have been taken.

Learned counsel for the respondents jointly submitted that since one of the offences is cognizable, in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in State of Orissa vs. Sharat Chandra and ors reported in (1996) 6 SCC 435, the entire case 3 shall be treated as cognizable case and the provisions contained in Section 155 (4) Cr. P. C.

Be that as it may, since the charge-sheet has been filed and the cognizance of the offences has already been taken by the learned Magistrate, if the applicant is so advised, she may file application for their discharge. In case such application is filed, the learned Magistrate shall decide the same in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. Applicant is at liberty to file application for exemption from appearance also before the learned Magistrate.