1 CrAppln 117 10J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 117 OF 2010

1) Dastagirkhan s/o Kudratullakhan,
Age 32 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o. Mushafarshah Mohalla, Basmat,
Tq. Basmat, Dist. Hingoli.

2) Kudratullahkhan s/o Noorullakhan,
Age 60 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o. As above.

3) Ajmeribegum w/o Kudratullakhan,
Age 55 years, Occ. Household.

4) Billalkhan s/o Kudratullakhan,
Age 35 years, Occu. Driver.
R/o. As above.

5) Afreembegum w/o Bilalkhan,
Age 30 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. As above.

6) Naseembegum w/o Mohamad
Sujathussain, Age 38 years,
Occ. Household, R/o. Chaitnya
Nagar, Nanded.

7) Kausarbegum w/o Mohd. Azar,
Age 25 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Azam Colony, Bhokar,
Dist. Nanded. … Applicants
(Original accused )
VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra.
Through Police Station CIDCO,
Nanded (Rural)

1/5

::: Uploaded on – 30/07/2018 31/07/2018 00:45:38 :::
2 CrAppln 117 10J

2. Mohsinabegum w/o Dastagirkhan,
Age 24 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. N.D. 120, CIDCO, Nanded. … Respondents.
(respondent No. 2 is original
complainant)
…
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Jitendra V.Patil, h/f Mr. P.R.
Katneshwarkar.
APP for respondent No. 1/State : Mr. R.V. Dasalkar.
Advocate for respondent No. 2 : Mr. A.R. Gaikwad
(appointed).

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE
K. L. WADANE, JJ.

DATE : 24th JULY, 2018.

JUDGMENT (PER K.L. WADANE, J)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
the parties, this application is taken up for final hearing.

2. This application is filed by the applicants/original accused
under the provisions of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
for relief of setting aside and quashing the first information report No.
327/2009 registered with CIDCO, Nanded (Rural), police station for the
offences punishable under section 498A, 323, 504, read with section 34
of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:

2/5

::: Uploaded on – 30/07/2018 31/07/2018 00:45:38 :::
3 CrAppln 117 10J

(i) The applicant No. 1 is the husband of respondent No. 2.

Applicants No. 2 and 3 are father and mother of applicant No. 1. The
applicant No. 4 is elder brother of applicant No. 1, whereas applicant
No. 5 is wife of applicant No. 4. The applicants No. 6 and 7 are sisters
of applicant No. 1.

(ii) Respondent No. 2/original complainant lodged complaint on
02.12.2009 by alleging that, her marriage performed with applicant
No. 1 Dastagirkhan on 29.05.2005. After the marriage for about one
year the complainant was treated well by the applicants. Thereafter the
applicants started demanding Rs. 1 lakh for purchasing Tavera car to the
complainant and on that count they illtreated her mentally and
physically. Prior to three months the applicants assaulted and abused
her and drove her out of the house and since then she started residing at
her parental house. When she was at her parental house, her husband,
father-in-law and elder brother-in-law came there and threatened her that
if she has not brought the money they will kill her. With these
allegations, offence came to be registered against the applicants for the
offences punishable under section 498-A, 323, 504 read with section
34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Patil, learned counsel
for the applicants, Mr. Dasalkar, learned APP for the respondent
No.1/State and Mr. Gaikwad, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

5. On perusal of the contents of the first information report it
appears that specific allegations of illtreatment, demand of money and

3/5

::: Uploaded on – 30/07/2018 31/07/2018 00:45:38 :::
4 CrAppln 117 10J

assault are made against applicants No. 1 to 5. The allegations against
the applicants No. 6 and 7 are vague and general in nature. No specific
instance or particular act alleged or quoted in first information report
against the applicants No. 6 and 7. It also appears that applicant No. 6
and 7 are married sisters of applicant No. 1 (husband). Applicant No. 6
is residing at Nanded with her husband from last 17 years and applicant
No. 7 is residing at Bhokar with her husband. Prima-facie it appears
that the applicants No. 6 and 7 have no concern with the family matters
of applicant No. 1. Therefore, prima-facie it appears that there is no
force in the allegations of the complainant made against the applicants
No. 6 and 7.

6. In view of the above and on perusal of the first information
report as well as statement of witnesses it also appears that there is no
material particular quoting any specific incident of visit or about
illtreatment or harassment at the hands of applicants No. 6 and 7 so as to
attract the ingredients of section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code or
other offences as alleged by the complainant. The complainant has made
vague and general allegations against the applicant No. 6 and 7. Hence
to prevent the abuse of process of law, we find that discretion needs to
be exercised in respect of applicants No. 6 and 7. Hence, following
order:

ORDER

1. Application of applicant No. 6 Naseembegum w/o
Mohamad Sujathussain and applicant No. 7 Kausarbegum

4/5

::: Uploaded on – 30/07/2018 31/07/2018 00:45:38 :::
5 CrAppln 117 10J

w/o Mohd. Azhar is allowed and first information report
filed against them is quashed and set aside.

2. Relief is granted in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ only to the
extent of applicants No. 6 and 7.

3. Application of applicants No. 1 to 5 stands rejected.

4. Rule made absolute in those terms.

7. Criminal application is disposed of.

(K. L. WADANE, J.) (T.V.NALAWADE,J.)

mkd/-

5/5

::: Uploaded on – 30/07/2018 31/07/2018 00:45:38 :::