Cri. Appln. No. 5994/13 Ors.
1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPICATION NO. 5994 OF 2013

1. Mohd. Irfan s/o. Abdul Mannan Ghongade,
Age 30 years, Occu. Advocate,

2. Rehana w/o. Abdul Mannan Ghongade,
Age 53 years, Occu. Household,

3. Abdul Mannan Sahamohammad Ghongade,
Age 60 years, Occu. Agri.,

4. Shahenaz begum w/o. Mohd. Naim Ghongade,
Age 38 years, Occu. Household,

All R/o. Near Ghanti Baba Mandir, Opp.
L.I.C. Office, Arani Road, Digras (Darvha),
Tq. Darvha, Dist. Yavatmal.

5. Shabana begum w/o. Shaikh Sajed Ghongade,
Age 38 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. Kilman Chwal, Navpada Road,
Kurla (W), Mumbai.

6. Salma Begum w/o. Shaikh Jaker Ghongade,
Age 36 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. 4-5-446, Bhuktapur, Adilabad,
Andharapradesh.

7. Samina Begum d/o. Abdul Mannan Ghongade @
Samina Begum w/o. Mohammad Parvez,
Age 24 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. ….Applicants.

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S. Nanalpeth, Parghani,
Dist. Parbhani.

2. Summaiya Yasmin w/o. Mohd. Irfan Ghongade,
Age 26 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. At present Amin Colony, Dhar Road,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani. ….Respondents.

::: Uploaded on – 01/08/2018 02/08/2018 01:49:58 :::
Cri. Appln. No. 5994/13 Ors.
2

Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, APP for respondent No. 1/State.
Mr. G.R. Sayed, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

WITH
CRIMINAL APPICATION NO. 1488 OF 2014

Mohd. Irfan s/o. Abdul Mannan Ghongade,
Age 30 years, Occu. Advocate,
R/o. Near Ghanti Baba Mandir, Opp.
L.I.C. Office, Arani Road, Digras (Darvha),
Darvha, Dist. Yavatmal. ….Applicant.

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Superintendent of Police,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani.

2. Summaiya Yasmin w/o. Mohd. Irfan Ghongade,
Age 26 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. At present Amin Colony, Dhar Road,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani.

3. Shaikh Wajid s/o. Shaikh Ibrahim,
Age 36 years, Occu. Business,
R/o. Ameen Colony, Parbhani. ….Respondents.

Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, APP for respondent No. 1/State.
Mr. G.R. Sayed, Advocate for respondent No. 2 3.

WITH
CRIMINAL APPICATION NO. 1818 OF 2014
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6271 OF 2014

1. Rehana w/o. Abdul Mannan Ghongade,
Age 53 years, Occu. Household,

2. Abdul Mannan Sahamohammad Ghongade,
Age 60 years, Occu. Agri.,

::: Uploaded on – 01/08/2018 02/08/2018 01:49:58 :::
Cri. Appln. No. 5994/13 Ors.
3

Both R/o. Near Ghanti Baba Mandir, Opp.
L.I.C. Office, Arani Road, Digras (Darvha),
Tq. Darvha, Dist. Yavatmal.

3. Shahenaz begum w/o. Mohd. Naim Ghongade,
Age 38 years, Occu. Household,

4. Mohd. Abdul Naim Sahab Ghongade,
Age 45 years, Occu. Business,

Both R/o. Kilman Chwal, Navpada Road,
Kurla (W), Mumbai.

5. Shabana begum w/o. Shaikh Sajed Ghongade,
Age 38 years, Occu. Household,

6. Shaikh Mohd. Sajed Sahab Ghongade,
Age 36 years, Occu. Business,

R/o. 5-2-447, Fatteburuj, Killa Road,
Nanded, Dist. Nanded.

7. Salma Begum w/o. Shaikh Jaker Ghongade,
Age 36 years, Occu. Household,

8. Abdul Jaker Sahab Ghongade,
Age 35 years, Occu. Business,

Both R/o. 4-5-446, Bhuktapur, Adilabad,
Andharapradesh.

9. Samina Begum d/o. Abdul Mannan Ghongade @
Samina Begum w/o. Mohammad Parvez,
Age 24 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. Plot No. 45-P, Shahanagar, Beed
Bypass road, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.

10. Shaikh Yunus s/o. Shaikh Kasim Ghongade,
Age 40 years, Occu. Business,
R/o. Behind Jama Masjid, Mahur,
Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. ….Applicants.

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Superintendent of Police,

::: Uploaded on – 01/08/2018 02/08/2018 01:49:58 :::
Cri. Appln. No. 5994/13 Ors.
4

Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani.

2. Summaiya Yasmin w/o. Mohd. Irfan Ghongade,
Age 26 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. At present Amin Colony, Dhar Road,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani. ….Respondents.

Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, APP for respondent No. 1/State.
Mr. G.R. Sayed, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

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

RESERVED ON : 27/07/2018
PRONOUNCED ON : 01/08/2018

JUDGMENT : [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]

1) The first three proceedings are filed under section 482 of

Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’ for

short) for relief of quashing of F.I.R. and criminal proceedings and

Criminal Application No. 6271/2014 is filed in Criminal Application

No. 1818/2014 for permission to produce some documents in the

main proceeding. As the applicants of Criminal Application Nos.

5994/2013, 1488/2014 and also 1818/2014 are the same and as

respondent No. 2 of these proceedings Summaiya Yasmin is the

same, though in Criminal Application No. 1488/2014, there is also

Shaikh Wajid as one respondent and as the dispute is mainly

matrimonial in nature, this Court is deciding all the matters together.

Both the sides are heard.

::: Uploaded on – 01/08/2018 02/08/2018 01:49:58 :::

Cri. Appln. No. 5994/13 Ors.

5

2) Criminal Application No. 5994/2013 is filed for relief of

quashing of F.I.R. No. 225/2013 registered for the offences

punishable under sections 452, 223, 34 etc. of Indian Penal Code

(hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short), section 2, 3, 4 of the

Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and

Other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic

Ordinance, 2013. Allegations are made in the F.I.R. by Smt.

Summaiya against applicant No. 1, husband and relatives of the

husband. Applicant No. 2 is mother of the husband, applicant No. 3

is father of the husband, applicant Nos. 4 to 7 are married sisters of

the husband. Place of residence of the husband and his parents is

given as ‘Near Ghanti Baba Mandir, Opp. L.I.C. Office, Aarni Road,

Digras (Darvha), Tq. Darvha, Dist. Yavatmal’ when the addresses of

the married sisters is given of different places like Mumbai, Andhra

Pradesh and Aurangabad.

3) In F.I.R. No. 225/2013, allegations are made that all the

accused persons were believing in black magic ( tknqVks.kk) and they

used to harass and illtreat the first informant out of that belief. She

has made allegations that the accused used to chant Mantras and

they used to compel the first informant for Namaz and Roza.

Allegations are made that in the food of the first informant, they

used to mix something after doing the activity of black magic and

::: Uploaded on – 01/08/2018 02/08/2018 01:49:58 :::
Cri. Appln. No. 5994/13 Ors.

6

they used to compel her to eat that food. Allegations are made that

even the sisters of the husband used to give threat to finish her if

she was not acting as per their instructions involving black magic. It

is contended that on one occasion when she was living with her

parents i.e. on 22.10.2013 after coming to the house of her parents,

all the accused gave beating to her and the first informant has made

allegations against all the accused that on 26.10.2013 when the first

informant was present in the house of her parents they came there

with one Mantrik and they created a show that Mantrik was

possessing supernatural, extraordinary powers due to his capacity as

Mantrik and some rites were performed against her in her house and

her hair were virtually pulled to remove her hair. It is contended that

she was told that to have a good healthy children from her, this

activity was done. The allegations made in the F.I.R. No. 225/2013

show that allegations as against married sisters of the husband are

very vague. When they are residents of different places than the

place of her husband, it was necessary to give specific reason for

coming of all the accused together on that day to the house of

parents’ of first informant. In the F.I.R., the names of witnesses are

not given. It is her contention that 20 days prior to the date of

incident she had returned to parent’s house and after that two

incidents took place like the incident dated 22.10.2013 and

26.10.2013.

::: Uploaded on – 01/08/2018 02/08/2018 01:49:58 :::

Cri. Appln. No. 5994/13 Ors.

7

4) In second proceeding, criminal proceeding Nos.

773/2013 and 774/2013 are involved. These applications are filed by

Summaiya in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani for

seeking direction of investigation under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. In

proceeding No. 773/2013 incident dated 22.10.2013 is mentioned by

Shaikh Wajid who is a relative of first informant Summaiya. He has

made allegations that his bag containing valuables including cheque

book was lost in marriage ceremony dated 13.5.2013 and on

22.10.2013 at 3.00 p.m. accused Nos. 1 and 2, the husband of

Summaiya and brother of husband came to Amin Colony, Parbhani

and demanded Rs. two lakh by saying that his missing bag was with

them. Even when incident took place on 22.10.2013, he filed

proceeding on 29.10.2013 for making allegations of theft and

cheating. Allegations are made that there was an attempt of

extortion by demanding Rs. two lakh from him.

5) In proceeding No. 774/2013, Summaiya has made

allegations in respect of incident dated 22.10.2013 and according to

her, this incident also took place at about 3 p.m. at Amin Colony,

Parbhani when the incident of proceeding No. 773/2013 had

allegedly taken place at the same time at the same place.

Allegations are made that all the eleven accused mentioned in

::: Uploaded on – 01/08/2018 02/08/2018 01:49:58 :::
Cri. Appln. No. 5994/13 Ors.

8

proceeding No. 774/2013 had committed offence of trespass by

entering her parent’s house, they assaulted her, they attempted to

kill her and they said that she should bring Rs. two lakh with her if

she wanted to return to the matrimonial house. She has also

contended that on 23.10.2013 she attempted to give report to

police, but police did not accept the report and so, she filed the

proceeding before Magistrate on 29.10.2013 for offences punishable

under sections 498-A, 323, 34 etc. of IPC.

6) Copy of proceeding filed under section 125 of Cr.P.C. by

the wife Summaiya dated 23.10.2013 is produced on the record. In

this document, there is no mention of the incident dated

22.10.2013. Allegations are made that she was driven out of the

matrimonial house as the demand of Rs. two lakh was not met with.

In proceeding filed under section 125 of Cr.P.C., she has contended

that she was driven out of matrimonial house on 10.8.2013 and

even when proceeding was filed on 23.10.2013 she did mention the

incident dated 22.10.2013 in which she was allegedly assaulted in

her parent’s house.

7) In F.I.R. No. 46/2013, allegations of illtreatment are

made to make out the case for offences punishable under sections

498-A etc. of IPC as against eleven accused and main incident is

::: Uploaded on – 01/08/2018 02/08/2018 01:49:58 :::
Cri. Appln. No. 5994/13 Ors.

9

mentioned as incident dated 22.10.2013. This crime was registered

on the basis of directions given by the learned J.M.F.C. to make

investigation. Thus, there is repetition of the proceedings and it can

be said that one relief claimed in proceeding bearing Criminal

Application No. 1488/2014 is claimed in Criminal Application No.

1818/2014.

8) The submissions made show that as against relative of

the wife viz. Shaikh Wajid, proceeding was taken by other persons

for offences punishable under Negotiable Instruments Act. It can be

said that in anticipation of such proceeding, the proceeding was filed

by Shaikh Wajid bearing No. 773/2013. It can be said that he

wanted to use the allegations made in this proceeding as defence in

proceeding filed against him for cheque bouncing. The submissions

made show that the relations between the parties were already

strained. In view of these circumstances, it does not look probable

that on 22.10.2013 out of eleven accused mentioned by the wife,

only two accused separately accosted Shaikh Wajid and admitted

that his cheque book was with them and they demanded amount of

Rs. two lakh from him. If the cheque book was lost in May 2013, in

ordinary course, some correspondence would have been made by

Shaikh Wajid with the bank or police, but there is no such record.

This Court has no hesitation to observe that it is nothing, but

::: Uploaded on – 01/08/2018 02/08/2018 01:49:58 :::
Cri. Appln. No. 5994/13 Ors.

10

exaggeration, an attempt to pressurise every relative of husband by

Summaiya and her close relative Shaikh Wajid. Many proceedings

are filed by them against husband and his relatives. This Court has

no hesitation to hold that proceeding No. 773/2013 has no

substance and it is not possible to achieve anything by making

investigation of that complaint. Thus, the criminal application filed

for challenging the proceeding No. 773/2013 needs to be allowed.

9) As already observed, there is one proceeding bearing No.

774/2013 and there is another proceeding having F.I.R. No. 36/2013

for the same offence. For the offence punishable under section 498-

A of IPC, Summaiya has made eleven accused persons. Similarly, for

the offence of trespass and offence punishable under section 452 of

IPC, she has made seven accused. Even distant relatives of husband

are made accused. In view of these circumstances and separate

residences of other accused from the residence of husband of

Summaiya, this Court holds that it is not desirable to allow the

prosecution to go on or to allow the investigation to go on as against

the relatives of the husband from both the proceedings. The

proceedings can be allowed to go ahead as against husband and his

parents. So, the following order :-

ORDER

(I) Criminal Application No. 5994/2013 of applicant Nos. 4

::: Uploaded on – 01/08/2018 02/08/2018 01:49:58 :::
Cri. Appln. No. 5994/13 Ors.

11

to 7 is allowed. Relief is granted to them in terms of prayer clause

‘A’. The application of remaining applicants i.e. applicant Nos. 1 to 3

stands dismissed. Rule is made absolute in those terms.

(II) Criminal Application No. 1488/2014 filed by husband

Mohd. Irfan in respect of proceeding bearing No. 773/2013

registered for the offences punishable under sections 379, 420, 34

etc. of IPC pending before the C.J.M., Parbhani stands quashed and

set aside. However, other reliefs claimed in respect of proceeding No.

774/2013 filed for offence punishable under section 498-A, 34 etc. of

IPC and under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act stands

dismissed. Rule is made absolute in those terms.

(III) Criminal Application No. 1818/2014 of applicant Nos. 3

to 10 is allowed and the application of applicant Nos. 1 and 2 stands

dismissed. Relief is made absolute in favour of applicant Nos. 3 to 10

in terms of prayer clause ‘A’ for quashing of the F.I.R. No. 46/2013.

(IV) Criminal Application No. 6271/2014 is disposed of.

(V) Interim relief is vacated. The request of continuation of

interim relief is rejected.

[K.L. WADANE, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]

ssc/

::: Uploaded on – 01/08/2018 02/08/2018 01:49:58 :::