SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Khalil S/O. Yunus Sayyed And … vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 31 July, 2018

CrApln 992 18J.odt



1. Khalil s/o Yunus Sayyed,
Age 29 years, Occ. Private Service,
R/o. Bhawan, Tq. Sillod, Dist.

2. Yunus s/o Dadamiya Sayyed,
Age 60 years, Occ. Business
Agril. R/o. As above.

3. Gausiyabi w/o Yunus Sayyed,
Age 55 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. As above.

4. Kajal d/o Yunus Sayyed,
Age 22 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. As above. … Applicants
(Ori. Accused).

1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through : Police Inspector,
Sillod (Rural) Police Station,
Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad.

2. Hanif Shah s/o Kasam Shah,
Age 51 years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Ektanagar, Power House,
Harsul, Aurangabad. … Respondents
(Respondent No. 2 is
original complainant)
Advocate for applicants : Mr. Saeed S. Shaikh.
APP for respondent no. 1/State : Mr. M.M. Nerlikar.
Advocate for respondent No. 2 : Mr. Shaikh Shafique Ahmed.


::: Uploaded on – 02/08/2018 03/08/2018 01:32:54 :::
CrApln 992 18J.odt

DATE : 31st July, 2018.


1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard both
sides for final disposal.

2. The application is filed for relief of quashing of the first
information report No. 364/2017, registered at Sillod (Rural) Police
Station, Dist. Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under section
304-B, 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal

3. The respondent No. 2 herein lodged complaint to the police
station alleging that his daughter Shahanaj was given in marriage to the
applicant No. 1. Their marriage took place on 31.05.2015. The daughter
of the respondent No. 2 came to his house for delivery and on
23.04.2016 she delivered a male child. In the month of October 2016
son of the respondent No. 2 namely Sameer @ Saddaam went to met his
daughter and he noticed that the weight of Shahanaj was reduced. He
enquired with applicant No. 2/ father-in-law of Shahanaj about it, on
which he replied that her weight would be reduced and consequently she
will die. In the month of November 2016 Shahanaj informed to the
respondent No. 2 that the applicants No. 1 to 4 were demanding money
for purchasing car. They abused and beat her. Thereafter she was
driven out from their house. On 14.01.2017 the daughter of the
respondent No. 2 was examined in the M.G.M. Hospital and concerned


::: Uploaded on – 02/08/2018 03/08/2018 01:32:54 :::
CrApln 992 18J.odt
doctor informed that Shahanaj was suffering from low B.P., therefore,
she was required to admit in the hospital. On 20.01.2017 Shahanaj
informed to the respondent No. 2 that her husband is having illicit
relation with one widow.

4. It is further alleged by the respondent No. 2 that one day in-
laws of his daughter mixed something in the food and since then
Shahanaj was suffering from vomiting. She was hospitalized. On
22.01.2017 she was shifted from M.G.M. Hospital to Kalpataru Hospital.
Again she was referred to Ghati Hospital, Aurangabad, where she died
on 24.01.2017.

5. Looking to the allegations of the respondent No. 2 it appears
that those are vague. No particulars are given as to the date, time on
which the applicants have illtreated her. No particular act of each of the
applicants has been mentioned. Further it was tried to be mentioned in
the first information that the applicants have mixed something in her
food and therefore she was suffering from vomiting. Such allegations
indicate that Shahanaj wants to say that applicants have mixed the
poison in her food.

6. During investigation the investigating officer collected opinion
as to the cause of death of the deceased Shahanaj and the concerned
doctor has opined that the deceased Shahanaj was died due to
“Adisoniam crisis in a case of disseminated kochs”. Furthermore, it
appears from the record that since November 2016 Shahanaj was
residing with respondent No. 2. Therefore, apparently it seems that the
respondent no. 2 had not taken care to give proper medical treatment


::: Uploaded on – 02/08/2018 03/08/2018 01:32:54 :::
CrApln 992 18J.odt
and therefore it appears that she died because of Tuberculosis.

7. In view of the above, the allegations made against the
applicants are vague, baseless, and therefore the applicants cannot be
compelled to face the trial on such baseless allegations. Hence,
following order:


1. Application is allowed.

2. Relief is granted in terms of prayer clause ‘B’. Rule
made absolute in those terms.

8. Criminal Application is disposed of.




::: Uploaded on – 02/08/2018 03/08/2018 01:32:54 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation