Bombay High Court
Husnabano Sheikh Vahab vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 May, 2017
Bench: S.S. Shinde
5020.16appln
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5020 OF 2016
1. Husnabano Sheikh Vahab
Age : 60 years, Occ : Housework,
2. Sheikh Vahab Sheikh Mannu
Age : 65 years, Occ : Labourer,
Both R/o Near Gangane College,
Islampura, Akot, Tq. Akot,
Dist. Akola.
3. Shamimbai Sheikh Mannan
Age : 40 years, Occ : Housework,
R/o Saraswati Nagar, Akot,
Tq. Akot, Dist. Akola.
4. Rabiyabi Sheikh Vakil
Age : 36 years, Occ : Housework,
R/o Kamunja, Tq. & Dist. Amravati.
5. Sheikh Firoz Sheikh Vahab
Age : 49 years, Occ : Labourer,
6. Shehanazbi Sheikh Firoz
Age : 45 years, Occ : Housework,
7. Sheikh Rafik Sheikh Vahab
Age : 38 years, Occ : Labourer,
8. Asma Sheikh Rafik
Age : 34 years, Occ : Housework,
9. Nurzabi Sheikh Faruk
Age : 40 years, Occ : Housework,
All R/o Near Gangane College,
Islampura, Akot, Tq. Akot,
Dist. Akola.
..APPLICANTS
VERSUS
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:25:15 :::
5020.16appln
2
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Inspector,
Bhusawal Bazarpeth Police Station,
Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal,
Dist. Jalgaon.
2. Gulshan Shaikh Idaris
Age : 30 years, Occ : Household,
R/o K/o. Khairunissa Abdul Raheman
Shivaji Nagar, Bhusawal,
Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon.
..RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for applicants : Mr.B.R. Warma
APP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.G. Karlekar
Advocate for respondent no.2 : Mr. Shaikh Naseer
....
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 27th April, 2017
PRONOUNCED ON : 3rd May, 2017
JUDGMENT (PER S.S. SHINDE, J)
Heard.
2. At the outset, the learned A.P.P.
appearing for the respondent/State informs
this Court that, during pendency of this
application, the charge-sheet is filed.
3. We have heard the learned counsel
appearing for the applicants. He submits
that, even if the allegations in the first
5020.16appln
information report are taken at its face
value and read in its entirety, an alleged
offences are not disclosed. He submits that,
an incident quoted in the first information
report is only with a view to take vengeance
and far from truth. He further submits that,
no incident as alleged on 30th January, 2016
has taken place and the same will be
reflected from the statement of complainant
dated 1st August, 2016 recorded by the
Grievance Cell. The Grievance Cell has
recorded the statement of complainant twice
and she did not disclose the incident dated
30th January, 2016 and hence, the complainant
filed the first information report on false
allegations. It is submitted that, the
complainant is desirous to get divorce,
therefore, is filing such false complaint. It
is submitted that, the complainant is
residing with her mother since last two
years. The applicants have no occasion and
5020.16appln
cause to visit the place of the complainant.
It is submitted that, applicant nos. 8 and 9
are married sisters. Applicant no.9 -
Rabiyabee resides in Amravati district. Both
the sisters got married before 15 years. They
have nothing to do with the matrimonial life
of the complainant. Applicant nos.1 and 2 are
the old parents/in laws. Applicant nos.3 and
4 are brothers of husband, applicant nos.5 to
7 are wives of brothers of husband. They all
are innocents and have been roped in a false
case. It is submitted that, the complainant
is residing in thick populated area and so
called incident was took place at about 10.00
a.m. and none of the witnesses are cited in
the complaint. It is also submitted that, the
complainant did not report to the police
immediately after the incident and also no
injuries are mentioned in her report. It is
submitted that, she did not take medical
treatment after alleged assault by the
5020.16appln
applicants. No medical certificate is
produced on record and the Police Authorities
have registered the offence without making
preliminary inquiry. Therefore, the learned
counsel appearing for the applicants, relying
upon the pleadings in the application,
grounds taken therein and the annexures
thereto submits that, the application
deserves to be allowed.
4. On the other hand, the learned
A.P.P. appearing for the respondent/State,
invites our attention to the allegations in
the first information report and submits
that, the alleged offences have been clearly
disclosed, and therefore, the Investigating
Officer has investigated into the matter and
filed the charge-sheet. Therefore, he submits
that, it is not desirable to quash and set
aside the first information report, when the
charge-sheet is already filed.
5020.16appln
5. The learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.2 submits that, the material
collected by the Investigating Officer during
the course of investigation and also the
statements of the witnesses recorded, would
clearly show that, an alleged offences have
been disclosed. He further submits that, the
Investigating Officer has collected the
sufficient material during the course of
investigation and on the basis of the said
material the trial can go on. Therefore, he
submits that, the application may be
rejected.
6. We have given careful consideration
to the learned counsel appearing for the
applicants, the learned A.P.P. appearing for
the respondent/State and the learned counsel
appearing for respondent no.2.
7. It is true that, applicant nos.8 and
9 are the sisters of husband Sheikh Idaris of
5020.16appln
respondent no.2, however, in the first
information report, a specific incident dated
30th January, 2016 is quoted and all the
applicants have been implicated in the said
incident. Upon perusal of the allegations in
the first information report and in
particular, an incident dated 30th January,
2016, it cannot be concluded that, the
allegations in the first information report
do not disclose an alleged offences. Even the
allegation in relation to the incident dated
30th January, 2016 are against all the
applicants. Even there are allegations of
beating by the applicants to respondent no.2.
Therefore, keeping in view the observations
of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhaskar
Lal Sharma and another vs. Monica and
others1, we are unable to accede to the
prayer of the applicants for quashing the
first information report. The Supreme Court
1(2014) 3 S.C.C. 383
5020.16appln
in the case of Taramani Prakash V/s State of
M.P. and others2 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.
8. In the light of discussion made
hereinabove, the application stands rejected.
An observations made hereinbefore are, prima
facie, in nature and confined to the
adjudication of present Application only.
This order will not preclude the applicants
from availing of the appropriate remedy by
filing application for discharge before the
concerned Court.
(K.K. SONAWANE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)
sga
2 2015 AIR (SC) (Supp) 704
