SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Khwaja Munawar Sultana And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 2 March, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 538 OF 2016

1) Khwaja Munawar Sultana
W/o Siddiqui Minhajuddin
Age : 47 years, occ : Teacher,
R/o Rangeen Gate, Labour Colony,
Aurangabad.

2. Khwaja Kauser Jabeen
W/o Athar Ahmed
Age : 42 years, Occ : Teacher,
R/o Labour Colony, Vishwasnagar,
Aurangabad…PETITIONERS

-VERSUS-

1. State of Maharashtra
Through Vaijapur Police
Station, Aurangabad.

2. Tajeen Tajwar Khwaja Alimoddin
Age : Major, Occ : Teacher,
R/o Syed Zaheit Ali Syed Masood Ali
Maqsood Colony, Near Sumairu hospital,
Roshan Gate, Aurangabad…RESPONDENTS

Advocate for petitioners : Mrs.R.S. Kulkarni
APP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.P. Deshmukh
Advocate for respondent no.2 : Mr. M.R. Jadhav

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE
K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 21st February, 2017
PRONOUNCED ON : 2nd March, 2017

JUDGMENT : (PER S.S. SHINDE, J)

This Petition is filed praying

::: Uploaded on – 02/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on – 03/03/2017 01:09:43 :::
538.16WP
2

therein for quashing of F.I.R. bearing Crime

No.I-37 of 2016 dated 10th February, 2016

registered at Vaijapur Police Station,

Aurangabad for the offences punishable under

Sections 498A, 120(B), 328, 504, 506 read

with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners submits that, the petitioners

are married sisters of the husband of

respondent no.2. The petitioner no.1 got

married on 3rd February, 1991 and petitioner

no.2 got married on 18th November, 1999. The

petitioners are living with their respective

husbands and families. They are arrayed as

accused nos.2 and 3 by respondent no.2. It is

submitted that, the brother of the

petitioners got married with respondent no.2

on 27th May, 2017 at Aurangabad, as per the

Muslim rites and customs. Respondent no.2 on

10th February, 2016, for the first time,

::: Uploaded on – 02/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on – 03/03/2017 01:09:43 :::
538.16WP
3

alleged that, the petitioners and other

family members have treated her well for two

months, initially after the marriage and

thereafter started harassing her to bring

some money from her parents. It is alleged

that, her husband got married to one Asma and

both gave her medicines, which were injurious

to her kidneys. It is submitted that, so far

as the allegations of administration of wrong

medicines, which affected the kidneys of

respondent no.2, are not against the present

petitioners. Respondent no.2 for the first

time after lapse of nine years have came with

a case of cruelty. The allegations in the

First Information Report are vague and no

specific overt acts are attributed to the

petitioners. It is submitted that respondent

no.2 voluntarily left the matrimonial home.

The learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners invites our attention to the

allegations in the First Information Report

::: Uploaded on – 02/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on – 03/03/2017 01:09:43 :::
538.16WP
4

and submits that, the allegations are

general in nature, absurd and inherently

improbable, and therefore, the First

Information Report deserves to be quashed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners placed reliance on the

exposition of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court

in the cases of Geeta Mehrotra V/s State of

U.P.1, Preeti Gupta V/s State of Jharkhand 2,

G.V. Rao V/s L.H.V. Prasad and others3 and

Pramod Uttam Shinde and others V/s State of

Maharashtra4. It is submitted that, the

alleged incident had occurred at Aurangabad

at matrimonial home and the First Information

Report is filed at Vaijapur, which is beyond

territorial jurisdiction of Vaijapur Police

Station, and hence registration of the same

is bad in law. In support of her contention,

1 (2012) 10 SCC 741
2 (2010) 7 SCC 667
3 (2000) 3 SCC 693
4 2015 All MR (Cri) 4232

::: Uploaded on – 02/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on – 03/03/2017 01:09:43 :::
538.16WP
5

when the allegations are vague and omnibus in

nature, the F.I.R. deserves to be quashed,

the learned counsel placed reliance on the

unreported judgment of this Court in the case

of Asma Hashmi D/o Mumtaz Abdulgani Hashmi

V/s The State of Maharashtra in Criminal

Application no.1926 of 2016 decided on 13th

April, 2016. It is submitted that respondent

no.2 has been under constant medications

since 2010 and if the prescriptions of

various medications of several doctors which

are annexed to the present petition are seen,

the same would show that, she has been

complaining of abdominal pains and

difficulties relating to abdomen since long

and hence the solitary incident as alleged in

the First Information Report which is

punishable under Section 328 of Indian Penal

Code is highly improbable. It is submitted

that, the allegations in respect of Section

328 of Indian Penal Code are vague since the

::: Uploaded on – 02/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on – 03/03/2017 01:09:43 :::
538.16WP
6

name of the medicine alleged to have been

administered to her by the accused is not

mentioned anywhere in the complaint and thus

it raises a serious doubt over the authority

of the allegations of administration of the

medicine since one does not know the

medicine, which though not admitted but for

the sake of arguments may have been given to

her and the medicine which she may have

produced before respondent no.1 and the

doctor are one and the same and hence on the

face of the complaint, the allegations are

unbelievable and over exaggerated and hence

the continuation of the criminal proceedings

would be nothing but abuse of process of law

and hence is liable to be quashed and set

aside.

4. On the other hand, the learned

A.P.P. appearing for the Respondent/State

submits that, the alleged offences have been

::: Uploaded on – 02/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on – 03/03/2017 01:09:43 :::
538.16WP
7

disclosed against the petitioners, and

therefore, those need investigation.

5. The learned counsel appearing for

respondent no.2 invites our attention to the

allegations in the First Information Report

and submits that, the allegations are serious

in nature, which need investigation. Though

the petitioners have been married, as a

matter fact they are residing in the

matrimonial home at Aurangabad.

6. We have heard the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners, the learned

A.P.P. appearing for the respondent/State and

the learned counsel appearing for respondent

no.2 at length.

7. The allegations against the present

petitioners in the First Information Report

are as under :-

::: Uploaded on – 02/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on – 03/03/2017 01:09:43 :::

538.16WP
8

“——1- R;kosGh ekÖ;k uUuank] ßdk;e rw vdsyh
nqfu;kes dekÅ gS D;k] ?kj dk dke D;k rsjk cki
djsxk D;kÞ vls nksUgh uUunk ukes fl}hdh equksOoj
Hkz- feugktksnnhu o [kktk dkSlj tchu Hkz- vFkj
vgsen Vkse.ks ekjr vlr- eh tsOgk gh xksV eks
irhyk lkaxr vls rsOgk rsgh eyk “rsjs cki dh ?kj
jk.kh gS D;k] ?kj dk dke djuk tku ij vkrk gS
blfy, nsj ls vkrh gS” vls Vkse.ks ekjr vls o
eyk f’kohxkG djhr vls o “ukSdjh djds midkj
dj jgh gS D;k” vls Eg.kwu ekÖ;kdMwu osGksosGh
eks loZ iSls ?ksr vlr-

2——- R;kuarj ekÖ;k yXukP;k 3 rs 4 o”kkZuarj eyk
ekÖ;k irhps eqaczk ;sFkhy jkg.kk;k ,dk MkW- vkRek
gk’eh firk eqerkt gk’eh fgP;kcjkscj iszelaca/k
vlY;kph ekfgrh [kqnn ekÖ;k irhus eyk lkafxryh
o rwyk eqyckG gksr ukgh eh frP;k’kh yXu dj.kkj
vkgs vls eyk Eg.kwu eks ekulhd [kPphdj.k eks
irh d: ykxys- R;kauh eyk R;kaP;k fiz;lhus
ikBoysys ?kk.ksjMs o v’yhy eWlst nk[kor vlr-
rlsp rw dqN dke dh ugh] eqs rsjs es baVsl ugh]
vkLek cgwr lqanj gS] eS mlhlsa ‘kknh d:axk vls
lkj[ks Eg.kwu ykxys- ekÖ;k uUuank ns[khy
eyk ?kkywu ikMwu cksyw ykxY;k- o rqyk eqyckG
gksr ukgh- rw dkgh dkekph ukgh vls Vkse.ks ek:
ykxY;k- eks irh eyk eksBeksB;k iksyhl
vf/kdk;kaps eWlst o Dyhi nk[kowu ekh ;kaP;k’kh

::: Uploaded on – 02/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on – 03/03/2017 01:09:43 :::
538.16WP
9

vksG[k vkgs vls Eg.kwu /kedkohr vlr o rlsp
eyk ekÖ;k isz;lh gk’eh vkLek jk.kk Hkz- eqerkt
gk’eh fgP;klkscr nqljs yXu dj.;kph ijokuxh ns
R;klkBh rw ekh enr dj rqyk eqyckG gksr ukgh-
vls Eg.kwu ekÖ;koj ncko Vkdw ykxys- ekÖ;k
irhus eks ,-Vh-,e- dkMZ ijr dsysys ukgh- rsp
ekk tek gks.kkj ixkj ns[khy [kpZ djhr vlr-
rlsp ekÖ;k nksUgh uUuank o irh gs ‘kkGk
cka/k.;klkBh 10][email protected]µ :i;s ¼ngk yk[k
:i;s½ ?ksÅu ;s vls lkaxr gksrs – R;kosGh eks
irh gs ex rw eks nqljs yXu d:u ns- ,d fnol
vls Eg.kwu eyk CyWdesy djr djhr gksrs-

3——- R;kp njE;ku fnukad [email protected]@2015 jksth ekÖ;k
irhus R;kaps nksUgh cfg.kh rlsp fe= rcjst o
vyh ;kapslkscr eqaczk ;sFks tkÅu eLthne/;s yXu
dsys o eyk Qksu d:u lkafxrys o rqyk vkrk dk;
djk;ps rs d:u ?ks v’kh /kedh fnyh- ekÖ;k
yXukyk ngk o”kZ kys vlY;keqGs o eksiqs dkghgh
bykt ulY;kus eh ukbyktkus rsFks jkgw ykxys-
R;kuarj eks irh R;kph nqljh iRuh vkLek o nksUgh
uUuank vls yXu d:u ?kjh vkys- R;kosGh ekh
rC;sr fc?kMysyhp gksrh o eh ?kjkr ksiwu gksrs- ?kjh
vkY;koj irhus ekÖ;k’kh vpkud xksM cksy.;kph
Lkq:okr dsyh- o rC;srhph fopkjiwl dsyh- eh
R;kauk iksV nq[kr vlY;kps o Fkdok vkY;kps

::: Uploaded on – 02/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on – 03/03/2017 01:09:43 :::
538.16WP
10

lkafxrys- rsOgk R;kauh R;kaph uohu iRuh gh MkWDVj
vlY;kus fryk fopk:u eyk xksG;k vk.kqu fnY;k-
eh rh xksGh ?ksryh R;kuarj vkLek fgus eyk ekÖ;k
uo;kP;k ekQZr fu;fer ?ks.;kPkk lYyk fnyk- dkgh
fnolkauh ekÖ;k uo;kus vkLek fgyk ?kjkiklwu
dkgh varjkoj vklsfQ;k dkWyuhrhy R;kaps ojh”B Qst
l¸;n ;kaps cfg.khpk yWV ?ksrys o rs rsFksp jkgw
ykxys- ek= frus fnysyh xksGh nksu efgus
lrr ?;k;yk ykoys- eh lk/kkj.kr lnj xksGh nksu
efgus lrr ?ksryh- R;kuarj ekh rC;sr vpkud
fc?kMyh o ekÖ;k y?kohrwu jDr IkMw ykxys- o y?
kohP;k fBdk.kh tGtG gksÅ ykxyh- Eg.kwu eh
ekgsjh vkys- o y?kohP;k fBdk.kh tGtG gksÅ
ykxyh- Eg.kwu eh ekgsjh vkys- njE;ku eyk e/ks
e/ks [kqi tkLr =kl gksr gksrk- ijarq eks irh eyk
lnj xksGh ?ks- rw cjh gks’khy vls lkaxwu d/kh xksM
cksywu rj d/kh tcjnLrhus ?;k;yk ykor vls- ek=
vpkud Qscqzokjh efgU;kr ekh rC;sr tkLrp [kjkc
kyh- R;keqGs eh ekÖ;k ekgsjh oStkiwj ;sFks vkys o
eks HkkÅ vWM- jkQs ;kauk loZ gdhdr lkafxryh-
R;kauh eyk fnukad [email protected]@2016 jksth MkW- vfHkthr
vUunkrs ;kaps vkuan gkWLihVy ;sFks usys- R;kauh
ekh oS rikl.kh dsyh o ;kiwohZ pkyw vlysY;k
vkS”k/kksipkjkcnny fopkjys- R;koj eh R;kauk eks
irh ukes [kktk vyheksnnhu firk [kktk ukfljksnnhu
o R;kaph iRuh MkW vkLek fgps lkax.;ko:u fnysY;k

::: Uploaded on – 02/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on – 03/03/2017 01:09:43 :::
538.16WP
11

xksG;k nk[koY;k- rsOgk MkWDVj lkgsckauh ,dne eyk
vksjMwu ;k xksG;k rqEgh d’kk dk; ?ksrk- ;k
xksG;keqGs rqeph fdMuh [kjkc gksr vkgs vls
lkafxrys o ekh lksuksxzkQh o brj VsLV dsY;k o
rkcMrksCk eyk ekÖ;k irhus fnysY;k uksMkMZ Iyl
;k ;k xksG;k rkcMrksc caan djk vls lkafxrys o
nql;k xksG;k fygwu fnY;k- l/;k eh MkW- vfHkthr
vUunkrs ;kaP;kdMs vkS”k/kksipkj ?ksr vkgs- R;kuarj
ekÖ;k y{kkr vkys dh ekÖ;k irhus R;kaP;k
cfguhlkscr o iRuhlkscr feGwu ekk fto tkok
Eg.kwu xksM xksM cksywu ekÖ;k ‘kfjjkP;k egRokP;k
vo;okl btk iksgpowu ekk ft tkok ;k gsrwus eyk
pqdhP;k xksG;k fnY;k- ;kewGs ekÖ;k fdMuhyk btk
iksgpyh vkgs- (Underlines added)

8. The contention of the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioners that

the allegations in the First Information

Report are omnibus and the alleged offences

are not disclosed, cannot be accepted. Upon

careful reading of the allegations in the

First Information Report alleged offences are

disclosed. When the investigation is in

progress, it is not possible to reach to the

::: Uploaded on – 02/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on – 03/03/2017 01:09:43 :::
538.16WP
12

definite conclusion that, the offence

punishable under Section 328 of the Indian

Penal Code is not disclosed. So far as

alleged offences under sections 120B, 498A,

120(B), 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code

are concerned, the ingredients of the said

offences are clearly attracted and the

alleged offences have been disclosed. The

First Information Report is not an

encyclopedia. During the course of

investigation, the Investigating Officer has

recorded the statements of the witnesses, and

prima facie, it appears that the material

collected by the Investigating Officer lends

support to the version of the informant in

the First Information Report.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of

Bhaskar Lal Sharma and another V/s Monica and

others5 in para 11 of the judgment has held

5 (2014) 3 SCC 383

::: Uploaded on – 02/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on – 03/03/2017 01:09:44 :::
538.16WP
13

that the facts, as alleged, in the complaint

will have to be proved which can be done only

in the course of a regular trial. The

appreciation, in a summary manner, of the

averments made in a complaint petition or

F.I.R. would not be permissible at the stage

of quashing of F.I.R. and the facts stated

will have to be accepted as they appear on

the very face of it.

10. The Supreme Court in the case of

Taramani Prakash V/s State of M.P. and

others6 has also taken a view that, the

question whether the informant/complainant

has infact been harassed and treated with

cruelty is a matter of trial. In that view of

the matter, we are not inclined to entertain

this Petition for quashing of First

Information Report. Hence the Petition stands

rejected. The observations made hereinabove

6 2015 AIR (SC) (Supp) 704

::: Uploaded on – 02/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on – 03/03/2017 01:09:44 :::
538.16WP
14

are, prima facie, in nature. The rejection of

present Criminal writ Petition shall not be

construed as an impediment in case the

petitioners wish to avail of the appropriate

remedy by way of filing the application for

discharge in the event of filing charge-sheet

by the Investigating Officer.

(K.K. SONAWANE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

sga

::: Uploaded on – 02/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on – 03/03/2017 01:09:44 :::

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