Wednesday, 29, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Ramzani Khan Mohammad Hussain And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 4826 Bom

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 4826 Bom
Judgement Date : 20 July, 2017

Bombay High Court
Ramzani Khan Mohammad Hussain And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 20 July, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
                                                                       WP/13/2009
                                       1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

            919 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.13 OF 2009


 1.       Ramjani Khan Mohammad Hussain,
          Age 42 years, Occu. Business,
          R/o Khizrabad, near Majestic Nagar,
          Indore, Tal & District Indore,
          (Madhya Pradesh).

 2.       Shaikh Yusuf S/o Shaikh Husain,
          Age 45 years, Occu. Business,

 3.       Shaikh Latif S/o Shaikh Husain,
          Age 52 years, Occu. Business,
          Both R/o Khazrana, Block No.40,
          Majestic Nagar, Indore,
          Tal. & District Indore (Madhya Pradesh)        ...        Petitioners
                  Versus
 1.       The State of Maharashtra

 2.       Wasima Begam Shaikh Javed,
          Age 25, Occu. Household,
          R/o Haldi Galli, Vaijapur,
          Tal. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad                ...        Respondents

                                  ...
 Mr. J.R.Shaikh, Advocate for Petitioners
 Mr. R.V.Dasalkar, AGP for State
                                  ...

                               CORAM : T.V.NALAWADE, AND
                                       SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

DATED : 20th July, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Shri. T.V.Nalawade, J.) :-

WP/13/2009

1. This petition is filed for quashment of the RCC No.

275/2008 presently pending in the Court of learned Judicial

Magistrate (First Class), Vaijapur for the offence punishable under

sections 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (For the sake of

brevity, "IPC" hereinafter) to the extent of the petitioners only.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and APP for State.

3. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are not

relatives of the first informant and they do not fall within the ambit of

Section 498-A of IPC. It was also submitted that, there is no specific

allegation against the petitioners which can come under the provisions

of Section 498-A of IPC and so the Regular Criminal Case needs to be

quashed, as against them.

4. This Court has carefully gone through the complaint,

which was referred to police and in which after making investigation

charge sheet is filed by the Police. In para No.1 of the complaint, the

relationship of accused No.6 is mentioned as he is maternal uncle of

the husband. Relationship of the accused Nos.7 and 8 is mentioned as

the uncles of the husband. Thus the specific relations are mentioned

in the complaint. In para No.2, 3 and 4 of complaint there are specific

WP/13/2009

allegations even against accused Nos.6, 7 and 8. There is allegation

that, these accused were instigating the other accused like husband and

his parents to give ill-treatment to the first informant - wife, as they

wanted to see that she was deserted and then daughter of accused No.6

can perform marriage with the husband of the informant. They were

ready to give dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) for

such marriage of the husband of the informant. They were making an

attempt to see that the first informant was driven out of matrimonial

house. There is also allegation that, all the accused were making

attempt to see that people started saying that first informant is sick and

she was possessed by ghost. Allegations are made against them that

all the accused were asking first informant to bring dowry which is in

para No.8.

5. The learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on

observation made by Calcutta High Court in Priti Kumar Kar and

Ors Vs. State of W. B. and Anr. [2009 Cri.L.J. 1423]. This case is of

no help to the petitioner as the High Court observed that, the persons

who can be made accused under Section 498-A of IPC needs to be

relatives of the husband either by blood or by marriage. Accused are

said to be related through blood.

WP/13/2009

6. Further reliance was placed on another case i.e. of

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) in Prashant Sharma

and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another [2017 Cri.L.J.

2015]. In this case, the High Court has held that there has to be some

specific overt act on the part the relatives of the husband, who are not

his parents, to show their involvement in the crime. The specific

allegations are there and, therefore, the proceedings can not be

quashed against petitioners.

7. The petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.

          (SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.)              (T.V.NALAWADE, J.)

                                       ...
 vmk





 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter