Shaista Shabbir Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra
2016 Latest Caselaw 6127 Bom

                                                             4687.2016Cri.A..odt
                                             1




                                                                          
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
                              BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                  
                      CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4687 OF 2016 




                                                 
              Shaista Shabbir Shaikh,  
              Age: 27 Years, Occ:Medical Practitioner,  
              R/o. Saralgaon, Thane, 
              Dist. Thane.                       APPLICANT 




                                        
                        VERSUS 

              1.
                             
                       The State of Maharashtra

              2.       Ayesha Fatema w/o. Javed Shaikh, 
                            
                       Age- 28 Years, Occu-Private Medical 
                       Practitioner, R/o. Lohar Galli,  
                       Juna Bazar, Beed,  
                       Tq. & Dist. Beed.             RESPONDENTS 
      


                                   ...
              Mr.G.R.Syed, Advocate for the applicant 
   



              Mr.S.W.Mundhe, APP for Respondent - State 
              Mr.C.S.Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent no.2 
                                   ...





                              CORAM:  S.S.SHINDE & 
                                      SANGITRAO S.PATIL,JJ. 

Reserved on : 14.10.2016 Pronounced on : 18.10.2016

JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable

forthwith, and heard finally with the consent

of the parties.

4687.2016Cri.A..odt

2. This Application takes exception to

the First Information Report bearing Crime

No.174/2016 registered with Beed City Police

Station, Beed, for the offences punishable

under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for

short 'IPC').

3. The applicant is arrayed as accused

no.5 in the First Information Report bearing

Crime No.174/2016 (for short 'FIR')

registered with Beed City Police Station. In

the said FIR, respondent no.2 i.e. informant,

alleged against the applicant that in the

month of December, 2015, when the informant

was present in the Hospital of her husband

viz. Javed Shaikh, the present applicant came

to meet him and said that, she has taken

divorce from her husband, and the husband of

the informant should also take divorce from

her, and thereafter, the applicant and

4687.2016Cri.A..odt

husband of the informant can perform the

marriage. When the informant asked the

applicant how did she know the husband of the

informant, the applicant said that, she knew

him from the college days. It is further

alleged in the said FIR that, when the

informant asked her husband at night about

his relations with the applicant, the husband

beat the informant and asked her to leave the

matrimonial home and bring money and four

wheeler from her parents. In the afore-stated

facts, the informant lodged the FIR against

the husband and other family members of the

husband for the incident which had taken

place on 24th December, 2015 and also 22nd May,

2016.

4. Hence, this Criminal Application for

quashing of FIR bearing Crime No.174/2016

registered with Beed City Police Station,

Beed.

4687.2016Cri.A..odt

5. The learned counsel appearing for

the applicant submits that the applicant has

no relation with the husband of the informant

as alleged in the FIR. She is no way

connected with the alleged offences. The

ingredients of Section 498-A of the IPC are

not attracted qua the applicant. Therefore,

further investigation as against the

applicant would be an abuse of process of

law. The learned counsel presses into service

exposition of law in the case of State of

Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal1 and submits that the

Criminal Application may be allowed.

6. On the other hand, the learned APP

appearing for the respondent - State and the

learned counsel appearing for the respondent

no.2 submits that, apart from the allegations

in the FIR, the statements of various

witnesses have been recorded, wherein the

present applicant is named and also an

1 AIR 1992 SC 604

4687.2016Cri.A..odt

overact is attributed against her. Therefore,

they submit that the Criminal Application

praying for quashing of FIR may be rejected.

7. We have carefully perused the

contents of the FIR. In the context of the

grounds raised in this Application, the

following portion from the FIR would be

relevant:

rlsp lu 2015 P;k fMlsacj efgU;kr eh ekÖ;k gkWLihVy e/;s vlrkauk MkW- 'kkbZLrk 'ks[k gh ekÖ;k irhyk HksV.;klkBh rsFks

vkyh o ekÖ;k irhyk Eg.kkyh dh] eh ekÖ;k irhdMwu ?kVLQksV

?ksryk vlwu rq i.k rqÖ;k iRuh dMwu ?kVLQksV ?ksowu ek>s'kh yXu dj vls ekÖ;k irh'kh rh cksyr vlrkauk R;kaps nks?kkaps cksyus eh ,sdys o R;koj R;k efgysyk eh fopkjys vlrk rhus

lkafxrys dh] vkeps tw.ks dkWystiklqu iqohZiklwu laca/k vkgsr vls rh Eg.kkyso#u eh ekÖ;k irhl fopkj.kk dsyh vlrk R;kauh R;kp jk=h eyk pkiVkus o cqD;kus ekjgk.k dsyh o ek>s

eqykyk ;sFks lksMwu rq ekgsjh fu?kwu tk o tsOgk iSls o pkjpkdh xkMh ?ksowu ;s'khy rsOgkp ijr ;s vls Eg.kwu eyk ?kjkckgsj gkrkyk /k#u dk<ys o ek>h diM;kph cWx vaxkoj Qsdyh o ijr tj ?kjkr vkyhl rj rqyk thos ek#.k Vkdhu v'kh /kedh fnyh ijarq eh ?kjkps ckgsj r'khp mHkh jkfgys dkgh osGkus ek>k

4687.2016Cri.A..odt

eqyxk tkLr jMr vlY;keqGs eyk ekÖ;k irhus ?kjkr ?ksrys nqljs fno'kh ldkGh ekÖ;k irhus ekÖ;k vkbZyk Qksu d#u

lkafxrys dh] rqeph eqyxh vkRrkph vkRrk ;sowu ?ksowu tk frph eyk xjt ukgh o eyk fryk ukanok;ps ukgh-

8. We have also carefully perused the

statements of the witnesses wherein it is

stated that the husband of the informant viz.

Shaikh Javed, has illicit relations with the

applicant. No specific date of any incident

has been mentioned in the FIR or in the

statements of the witnesses. No specific

overact is attributed so as to attract the

provisions of Sections 323, 504 and 506 of

the IPC against the applicant. There are

casual references qua the applicant. The

applicant is a medical practitioner. She is

residing in Thane District, which is more

than 300 kilo meters away from Beed.

9. The provisions of Section 498-A of

the IPC cannot be invoked qua the applicant,

since the applicant is not a 'relative' of

4687.2016Cri.A..odt

the husband of the informant. No specific

incident or overt act has been attributed

against the applicant to disclose, prima

facie, the offences punishable under Sections

323, 504 and 506 of the IPC.

10. In the light of the discussion in

the foregoing paragraphs, we are of the

considered view that continuation of the

further investigation/proceedings on the

basis of the First Information Report

bearing Crime No.174/2016 registered with the

Beed City Police Station, Beed, for the

offences punishable under Sections 498-A,

323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code as against the applicant

will be abuse of process of law. Hence the

First Information Report to the extent of the

applicant stands quashed and set aside.

11. The Rule is made absolute in above

terms. The Criminal Application is allowed to

4687.2016Cri.A..odt

the above extent, and the same stands

disposed of accordingly.

                               Sd/-                   Sd/-

               [SANGITRAO S.PATIL]          [S.S.SHINDE]




                                         
                     JUDGE                     JUDGE  

              DDC