Shaikh Hameduddin S/O. Shaikh … vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 18 December, 2017

2939.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2939 OF 2017

1. Shaikh Hameduddin s/o.Shaikh
Hamid Taba,
Age: 28 years, Occ: Private Service,
R/o.S.T.Colony, Fazilpura,
Aurangabad.

2. Shaikh Hamid Taba s/o.Fasiuddin,
Age: 60 years, Occ: Business,
R/o. as above.

3. Noorjaha w/o.Shaikh Hamid Taba,
Age: 50 years, Occ: Household,
R/o. as above.

4. Seema Sultana w/o.Nazir Khan,
Age : 35 years, Occ: Household,
R/o. Bandra, Mumbai.

5. Nazema Sultana d/o.Shaikh Hamid Taba,
Age: 28 years, Occ: Student,
R/o.S.T.Colony, Fazilpura,
Aurangabad.

6. Mohammad Parvez s/o.Shaikh Hamid Taba,
Age: 25 Years, Occ: Student,
R/o. as above. APPLICANTS

VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector,
City Chowk Police Station,
Aurangabad.

::: Uploaded on – 18/12/2017 19/12/2017 02:18:15 :::
2939.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
2

2. Afreenbano w/o.Shaikh Hameduddin,
Age: 23 years, Occ: Household,
C/o.Saleem Patel, Patel Nagar,
Naregaon, MIDC – CIDCO,
Aurangabad. RESPONDENTS

Mr.Moinuddin N.Shaikh, Advocate holding for
Mr.S.S.Kazi, Advocate for the applicants.
Mrs.V.S.Chaudhari, APP for the
Respondent/State
Smt.Zainab M.Surti Wagh [Appointed] a/w
Mr.M.M.Khan, Advocate for respondent no.2.

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE
A.M.DHAVALE,JJ.

Reserved on : 13.12.2017
Pronounced on : 18.12.2017

JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):

1] Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable

forthwith, and heard finally with the consent

of the parties.

2] This Application is filed, praying

therein to quash the First Information Report

bearing Crime No.0188/2017 registered at City

Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad, for the

offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323,

504, 506 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code and

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act, 1961.

::: Uploaded on – 18/12/2017 19/12/2017 02:18:15 :::

2939.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
3

3] In view of the statement made by the

learned counsel appearing for the applicants

on 23.11.2017 before this Court, already

application to the extent of applicant nos.1

to 3 has been dismissed as not pressed.

Therefore, this Application survives only in

respect of applicant nos.4 to 6.

4] Learned counsel appearing for the

applicants submits that, applicant no.4 Seema

Sultana w/o.Nazir Khan is residing at Bandra,

Mumbai. He invites our attention to the

rejoinder to the affidavit-in-reply filed on

behalf of respondent no.2, and submits that

the copies of the documents annexed with the

said rejoinder show that, applicant no.4 is a

member of the Siddhivinayak SRA Co-operative

Housing Society at Bandra, Mumbai, and

therefore, the allegations in the First

Information Report [for short ‘FIR’] in

respect of involvement of applicant no.4 are

::: Uploaded on – 18/12/2017 19/12/2017 02:18:15 :::
2939.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
4

inherently improbable. The allegations are

vague, general in nature and the alleged

offences are not disclosed as against

applicant no.4. It is further submitted that,

applicant nos.5 and 6 are the students, and

they are prosecuting their studies, and

therefore, their involvement in the alleged

offences is completely ruled out. It is

submitted that, the allegations as against

applicant nos.5 and 6 are vague, general and

alleged offences are not disclosed, and

therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed.

He further invites our attention to the

averments in the Application, grounds taken

therein, annexures thereto and prays that the

application may be allowed.

5] On the other hand, learned APP

appearing for respondent-State and learned

counsel appearing for respondent no.2,

relying upon the investigation papers and

also affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent

::: Uploaded on – 18/12/2017 19/12/2017 02:18:15 :::
2939.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
5

no.2, jointly submit that, careful perusal of

the allegations in the FIR, the specific

overt act is attributed qua applicant no.4.

The role of applicant no.4, in causing

harassment and giving ill-treatment to

respondent no.2, was comparatively greater

vis-a-vis other accused, and she is residing

at Aurangabad, and not at Mumbai, as

contended by the learned counsel appearing

for the applicants. It is submitted that, all

the accused without disclosing that the

husband of respondent no.2, namely Shaikh

Hameduddin Shaikh Hamid Taba, is already

married, cheated respondent no.2, and

solemnized his second marriage with her. It

is submitted that, the allegations in the

FIR, will have to be read as it is, and

appreciation of such allegations, even in a

summary manner, is not permissible. It is

submitted that, even the statements of the

independent witnesses, who are residing

::: Uploaded on – 18/12/2017 19/12/2017 02:18:15 :::
2939.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
6

nearby the house of the accused i.e.

matrimonial house, have been recorded by the

Investigating Officer.

6] We have given careful consideration

to the submissions of the learned counsel

appearing for the applicants, learned APP

appearing for respondent-State, and learned

counsel appearing for respondent no.2. With

their able assistance, we have perused the

averments in the Application, grounds taken

therein and annexures thereto, affidavit-in-

reply filed by respondent no.2, and also the

rejoinder to the affidavit in reply. Upon

careful perusal of the allegations in the

FIR, so far as applicant no.4 is concerned,

there are allegations that she along with her

mother assaulted respondent no.2. There are

allegations that, there was no disclosure

about first marriage of applicant no.1,

Shaikh Hameduddin Shaikh Hamid Taba, to the

informant or her parents. So far as applicant

::: Uploaded on – 18/12/2017 19/12/2017 02:18:15 :::
2939.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
7

no.4 is concerned, there are specific

allegations against her in the FIR. The

contention of learned counsel appearing for

the applicants that, she is residing at

Mumbai, is not supported by placing on record

the documents of impeccable character. Upon

careful perusal of the statements of the

witnesses, who are residing in the

neighbourhood of the applicants; their

version lends support to the allegations in

the FIR, inasmuch as, they have stated about

frequent quarrel/quarrels in the matrimonial

home. Therefore, the application of applicant

no.4 deserves no consideration. Hence, the

application to the extent of applicant no.4

stands rejected.

7] So far as applicant nos.5 and 6 are

concerned, it is not in dispute that, they

are the students and prosecuting their

studies. If the allegations in the FIR as

against them are taken in its entirety, there

::: Uploaded on – 18/12/2017 19/12/2017 02:18:15 :::
2939.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
8

is no any specific overt act attributed qua

them. There are vague and general allegations

against them. It is stated in the affidavit-

in-reply by respondent no.2 that applicant

nos.5 and 6 though prosecuting their studies,

never attended the college, cannot be

accepted as gospel truth. In that view of the

matter, so far as applicant nos.5 Nazema

Sultana d/o.Shaikh Hamid Taba and applicant

no.6 Mohammad Parvez s/o.Shaikh Hamid Taba

are concerned, if the investigation is

allowed to be continued against them, it

would unnecessarily cause hindrance in their

studies and also would affect on their

educational career, when there are no any

specific overt acts or role is attributed to

them.

8] The Supreme Court in the case of

Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh and another1 in the facts of that

1 (2012) 10 SCC 741

::: Uploaded on – 18/12/2017 19/12/2017 02:18:15 :::
2939.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
9

case held that casual reference to a large

number of members of the husband’s family

without any allegation of active involvement

would not justify taking cognizance against

them and subjecting them to trial. In the

said judgment, there is also reference of the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of

G.V.Rao Vs.L.H.V. Prasad2 wherein in para 12

it is observed thus:

“12. There has been an outburst of
matrimonial disputes in recent
times. Marriage is a sacred
ceremony, the main purpose of which
is to enable the young couple to
settle down in life and live
peacefully. But little matrimonial
skirmishes suddenly erupt which
often assume serious proportions
resulting in commission of heinous
crimes in which elders of the family
are also involved with the result
that those who could have counselled
and brought about rapprochement are
rendered helpless on their being
2 (2000) 3 SCC 693

::: Uploaded on – 18/12/2017 19/12/2017 02:18:15 :::
2939.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
10

arrayed as accused in the criminal
case. There are many other reasons
which need not be mentioned here for
not encouraging matrimonial
litigation so that the parties may
ponder over their defaults and
terminate their disputes amicably by
mutual agreement instead of fighting
it out in a court of law where it
takes years and years to conclude
and in that process the parties lose
their ‘young’ days in chasing their
‘cases’ in different courts.”

9] The Supreme Court in the case of

State of Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal3 held that,

in those categories of the case which are

mentioned in para 108 of said judgment, the

High Court would be able to quash the F.I.R.

Para 108 of the said judgment reads as under:

108. In the backdrop of the
interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV
and of the principles of law enunciated

3 AIR 1992 SC 604

::: Uploaded on – 18/12/2017 19/12/2017 02:18:15 :::
2939.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
11

by this Court in a series of decisions
relating to the exercise of the extra-
ordinary power under
Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it
may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give
an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of
cases wherein such power should be
exercised.

1. Where the allegations made in the First
Information Report or the complaint,
even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do
not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused.

2. Where the allegations in the First
Information Report and other materials,
if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not
disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police

::: Uploaded on – 18/12/2017 19/12/2017 02:18:15 :::
2939.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
12

officers under Section 156(1) of the
Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.

3. Where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of
any offence and make out a case against
the accused.

4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do
not constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order of
a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.

5. Where the allegations made in the FIR
or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach
a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.

6. Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions
of
the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in

the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.

::: Uploaded on – 18/12/2017 19/12/2017 02:18:15 :::

2939.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
13

7. Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him
due to private and personal grudge.

10] The case of applicant nos.5 and 6

is squarely covered under category nos.1 and

2 of the afore-stated categories from the

judgment in the case of State of Haryana V/s

Bhajan Lal [cited supra].

11] Keeping in view the above-mentioned

reported judgments in the cases of Geeta

Mehrotra and another [supra] and State of

Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal [supra], and in the

peculiar facts and circumstances of this

case, we are inclined to allow this

application to the extent of applicant nos.5

and 6. Hence, the application to the extent

of applicant nos.5 and 6 is allowed. First

Information Report bearing Crime

::: Uploaded on – 18/12/2017 19/12/2017 02:18:15 :::
2939.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
14

No.0188/2017, registered at City Chowk Police

Station, Aurangabad, for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504,

506 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code and

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act,

stands quashed to the extent of applicant

nos.5 and 6. Rule is made absolute on above

terms.

12] The application to the extent of

applicant no.4 stands rejected.

13] The observations made herein above

are prima facie in nature and confined to the

adjudication of the present application only.

The rejection of this application would not

debar applicant no.4 from availing of an

appropriate remedy as available in law.

14] Since, Smt. Zainab M. Surti Wagh,

the learned counsel is appointed to prosecute

the cause of respondent no.2, she would be

::: Uploaded on – 18/12/2017 19/12/2017 02:18:15 :::
2939.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
15

entitled for the fees, as per the schedule of

fees maintained by the High Court Legal

Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.

[A.M.DHAVALE] [S.S.SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
DDC

::: Uploaded on – 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on – 19/12/2017 02:18:15 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *