SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Khayyum S/O Musa Qureshi vs The State Of Maharashtra Through … on 27 June, 2018

1 CrAppln.2519.17.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2519 OF 2017

1. Khayyum s/o Musa Qureshi,
Age : 24 years, Occu : Business,
R/o Talkhed, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed.

2. Musa Ismail Qureshi,
Age : 56 years, Occu : Agril.,
R/o Talkhed, Tq. Majalgaon,
Dist. Beed.

3. Nasima Musa Qureshi,
Age : 50 years, Occu : Household,
R/o Talkhed, Tq. Majalgaon,
Dist. Beed.

4. Hina w/o Altaf Shaik,
Age 22 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Room No. 181, Jamadar Chawl,
Sevak Nagar, Jari-mari, Kurla (W)
Mumbai.

5. Najreen d/o Musa Qureshi,
Age 19 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Talkhed, Tq. Majalgaon,
Dist. Beed.

6. Rukaiyya w/o Nayyum Qureshi,
Age : 26 years, Occu : Household,
R/o Talkhed, Tq. Majalgaon,
Dist. Beed.

7. Asma Jainu @ Majed Qureshi,
Age : 25 years, Occu : Household,
R/o Talkhed, Tq. Majalgaon,
Dist. Beed.

1/6

::: Uploaded on – 03/07/2018 04/07/2018 00:57:43 :::
2 CrAppln.2519.17.odt

8. Mohsin Musa Qureshi,
Age : 21 years, Occu : Agri/Business,
R/o Talkhed, Tq. Majalgaon,
Dist. Beed.

9. Wasim Musa Qureshi,
Age : 23 years, Occu : Agri/Business,
R/o Talkhed, Tq. Majalgaon,
Dist. Beed.

10. Jainu @ Majed Musa Qureshi,
Age : 32 years, Occu : Driver,
R/o Talkhed, Tq. Majalgaon,
Dist. Beed.

11.Nayyum Musa Qureshi,
Age : 28 years, Occu : Driver,
R/o Talkhed, Tq. Majalgaon,
Dist. Beed. … Applicants
(Orig. Accused )
VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station,
Vivekanand Chowk, Latur,
Tq. Dist. Latur.
[Copy to be served on P. P.
High Court of Bombay,
Bench at Aurangabad].

2. Tajmoon w/o Khayyum Qureshi,
Age : 21 years, Occu : Household,
R/o Talkhed, Tq. Majalgaon,
Dist. Beed. At present Anjali Nagar, Latur,
Tq. Dist. Latur. … Respondents
(Resp. No. 2 is
Orig. informant)….

2/6

::: Uploaded on – 03/07/2018 04/07/2018 00:57:43 :::
3 CrAppln.2519.17.odt

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. A. V. Lavte h/f Mr. Salunke Sudarshan J.
APP for respondent/State : Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar
Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. R. B. Deshmukh

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

DATE : 27th June, 2018

JUDGMENT (PER K.L. WADANE, J)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the

parties, the application is taken up for final hearing.

2. The application is filed under section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure for relief of quashing of first information report

bearing Crime No. 163/2017 registered with Vivekanand Chowk Police

Station, Latur, Dist. Latur for the offence punishable under Section

498A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Respondent No.2/original complainant lodged first

information report against the present applicants on 12.04.2017 alleging

that she was married to applicant No. 1 Khayyum Musa Qureshi on

08.05.2014 and started living with her husband at her matrimonial

home. It is alleged that she was treated well by the applicants initially

for about six months. Thereafter, her husband asked the complainant

3/6

::: Uploaded on – 03/07/2018 04/07/2018 00:57:43 :::
4 CrAppln.2519.17.odt

to bring bring Rs. 1,00,000/- from her parents to purchase cattle. It is

alleged that the applicants harassed and abused her on one or the

reasons such as saying that she lack knowledge of cooking, household

work. It is alleged that her husband used to always beat her and he

also gave threat to kill her. It is alleged by the complainant that her

sister-in-laws used to provide inadequate food and abuse her. It is

further alleged that when her six months old child suffered from

Pneumonia, no medical treatment was provided by applicants and

ultimately the child died on 16.08.2016. Parents of the complainants

tried to convince the applicants to treat her well but in vain. With these

allegations, offence came to be registered against the applicants accused

for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read

with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Heard Mr. A. V. Lavte h/f Mr. S. J. Salunke, learned counsel

for the applicants, Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, learned APP for the

respondent-State and Mr. R. B. Deshmukh learned counsel for

respondent No.2.

5. On perusal of the contents of the first information report,

specific allegations of demand of money, ill-treatment and harassment,

4/6

::: Uploaded on – 03/07/2018 04/07/2018 00:57:43 :::
5 CrAppln.2519.17.odt

threat appear to be made against applicants 1 to 3. Applicant Nos.2 is

father- in-law and Applicant no.3 is mother -in-law of the complainant.

There are specific allegations against applicant Nos. 1 to 3 that they

have harassed the complainant and were beating her in pursuance of

demand of money.

6. From the record, it appears that Applicant Nos.4 and 5 are

sisters of applicant No.1 husband. Applicant No.4 is married and

residing separately at Mumbai, whereas, applicant Nos.6 to 11 are

brother-in-laws and sister-in-laws of the complainant. All family

members of the accused husband are roped in the offence. Allegation

against them is that they were harassing and abusing the complainant.

7. On perusal of the first information report, it appears that there

is no material particular quoting any specific incident of ill-treatment

or harassment against applicants No. 4 to 11 so as to attract ingredients

of section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Allegations against

applicants No. 4 to 11 in the first information report are vague and

general in nature. No specific instance or material particular quoted in

the FIR which would strengthen the allegation of the complainant that

there was harassment or ill-treatment at the hands of applicants No. 4

5/6

::: Uploaded on – 03/07/2018 04/07/2018 00:57:44 :::
6 CrAppln.2519.17.odt

to 11 . On its face, the complaint does not constitute any offence against

applicants No. 4 to 11. Nothing can be achieved if criminal proceeding

is allowed to be continued against these applicants. Therefore, we found

considerable force in the argument of Mr. A. V. Lavte, learned counsel

for the applicants for quashing the F.I.R. to the extent of the applicants

No. 4 to 11.

8. In view of the above, in order to to prevent the abuse of

process of law, we find that discretion needs to be exercised in respect of

Applicant Nos. 4 and 11. Hence following order:

O R D E R

(1) Application of applicant Nos.4 to 11 is hereby allowed.

Relief is granted in terms of prayer clause (B-II) only to
the extent of Applicant Nos. 4 to 11.

(2) The Application of Applicant Nos.1 to 3 stands dismissed.

(3) Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.

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

JPC

6/6

::: Uploaded on – 03/07/2018 04/07/2018 00:57:44 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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