Khwaja Munawar Sultana And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 347 Bom

                                                                    538.16WP
                                        1


                            
            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

538.16WP

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,

538.16WP

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

538.16WP

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

538.16WP

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

538.16WP

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

538.16WP

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 :-

538.16WP

"------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 ek>s 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 ek>s 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 ek>s ekulhd [kPphdj.k ek>s 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] eq>s 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- ek>s irh eyk eksBeksB;k iksyhl vf/kdk&;kaps eWlst o Dyhi nk[kowu ek>h ;kaP;k'kh

538.16WP

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 ek>h enr dj rqyk eqyckG gksr ukgh- vls Eg.kwu ekÖ;koj ncko Vkdw ykxys- ekÖ;k irhus ek>s ,-Vh-,e- dkMZ ijr dsysys ukgh- rsp ek>k 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 ek>s irh gs ex rw ek>s 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 ek>siq<s dkghgh bykt ulY;kus eh ukbyktkus rsFks jkgw ykxys- R;kuarj ek>s irh R;kph nqljh iRuh vkLek o nksUgh uUuank vls yXu d:u ?kjh vkys- R;kosGh ek>h 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

538.16WP

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 ek>h 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 ek>s 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 ek>h rC;sr tkLrp [kjkc >kyh- R;keqGs eh ekÖ;k ekgsjh oStkiwj ;sFks vkys o ek>s 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 ek>h oS|dh; rikl.kh dsyh o ;kiwohZ pkyw vlysY;k vkS"k/kksipkjkcnny fopkjys- R;koj eh R;kauk ek>s irh ukes [kktk vyheksnnhu firk [kktk ukfljksnnhu o R;kaph iRuh MkW vkLek fgps lkax.;ko:u fnysY;k

538.16WP

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 ek>h 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 ek>k fto tkok Eg.kwu xksM xksM cksywu ekÖ;k 'kfjjkP;k egRokP;k vo;okl btk iksgpowu ek>k 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

538.16WP

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

538.16WP

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

538.16WP

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