Bombay High Court
Ashraf Farukh Dhekiya And Othr vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 22 April, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
1/6 APL-1226.18.odt-Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1226 OF 2018
APPLICANTS :- 1. Ashraf Farukh Dhekiya, Age : 28 years, Occ:
Private.
2. Yasmin Farukh Dhekiya, Age: 65 years, Occ:
Household,
3. Irfan Farukh Dhekiya, Age : 40 years, Occ:
Private,
4. Rauf Farukh Dhekiya, Age: 35 years, Occ:
Private,
App. No.1 to 4 R/o Itwara Bazar, Ghodagalli,
Nanded.
...VERSUS...
NON-APPLICANTS :- 1. The State of Maharashtra, PSO, PS
Ramnagar, Chandrapur.
2. Sameera Ashraf Dhekiya, Aged abut 25
years, occ. Housewife, R/o C/o Habib
Ahmed Popatiya, Rehmatnagar, Chandrapur.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M.N.Ali, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr.S.P. Deshpande, A.P. P. for non-applicant No.1.
Mr. S.A.Malani, Advocate for non-applicant No.2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ AND AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED : 22.04.2021.
KHUNTE
2/6 APL-1226.18.odt-Judgment
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Amit B. Borkar, J.)
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
3. This application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure lays challenge to registration of First Information Report
No.864 of 2018, dated 01/09/2018 registered with non-applicant No.1-
Police Station and consequent charge-sheet bearing Regular Criminal
Case No.572 of 2018 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Chandrapur for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323 and
506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The First Information Report came to be registered against
the applicants with the accusations that the marriage between applicant
No.1 (Husband) and non-applicant No.2 (Wife) was performed on
01/05/2011. It is alleged that the family members of applicant No.1
physically and mentally harassed non-applicant No.2 and therefore, on
30/06/2017, non-applicant No.2 came to her parents' house along with
her children. The non-applicant No.2 returned to her matrimonial
home in the month of September, 2017, but the relatives of applicant
No.1 did not allow her to enter the house and she was thrown out of
her house by the family members of applicant No.1. It is alleged that on
KHUNTE
3/6 APL-1226.18.odt-Judgment
12/03/2018, non-applicant No.2 received a letter, wherein it is alleged
that non-applicant No.2 was given Talak by applicant No.1. It is alleged
that on 23/07/2018 she filed complaint against the applicants with the
Women Cell, but there was compromise between the applicants and
non-applicant No.2 with the condition that they will not harass non-
applicant No.2. Thereafter, on 04/08/2018, there was meeting between
the family members of non-applicant No.2 and the applicants wherein
applicants Nos.2 to 4 assured non-applicant No.2 that they will convince
applicant No.1 to treat non-applicant No.2 well. It is alleged that on the
said day, applicant No.1 came to her parents' house and abused non-
applicant No.2 in filthy language. The non-applicant No.2, therefore,
filed report with non-applicant No.1-Police Station on 01/09/2018
against the applicants. The Investigating Agency carried out
investigation and filed charge-sheet against the applicants.
5. The applicants have therefore, challenged the registration
of FIR and consequent charge-sheet by way of filing the present
application. This Court on 25/02/2019 issued notice for final disposal
to the non-applicants. The non-applicant No.1 in pursuance of the said
notice, filed reply stating that there is sufficient material on record to
implicate the applicants and therefore, there is no merit in the
application.
KHUNTE
4/6 APL-1226.18.odt-Judgment
6. The non-applicant No.2 also filed her reply and stated
similar contentions raised in the FIR. It is stated that there is prima
facie material available against the applicants and therefore, the
application deserves to be dismissed.
7. We have heard Mr. M.N.Ali, learned Advocate for the
applicants, Mr. S.P. Deshpande, learned APP for non-applicant No.1 and
Mr. S.A.Malani, learned Advocate for non-applicant No.2.
8. Mr. M.N. Ali, learned Advocate for the applicants stated at
the outset that he has instructions from applicant No.1 not to press
relief sought in the application and applicant No.1 desires to withdraw
the application to the extent of himself by giving up challenge to the FIR
and the charge-sheet. We, therefore, allow applicant No.1-husband to
withdraw the application for himself and dismiss it to the extent of
applicant No.1 only.
9. We have carefully considered the allegations in the FIR
and material produced on record in the form of charge-sheet. The
applicant No.2 is mother-in-law, applicant Nos.3 and 4 are are brother-
in-law of non-applicant No.2. Now a days, it has become a tendency to
make vague allegations against every member of the family of the
KHUNTE
5/6 APL-1226.18.odt-Judgment
husband implicating everybody under section 498-A and other offences
of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it has become necessary for the
Courts to carefully scrutinize the allegations and to find out if the
allegations made really constitute an offence and meet requirements of
law at least prima facie. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.
Subbarao & oths. v. State of Telangana , reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452
observed that relatives of husband should not be roped in on the basis
of vague allegations unless specific instances of their involvement are
set out.
10. Having carefully considered the allegations in the FIR and
the material produced on the record by way of charge-sheet, we are
satisfied that the allegations against the applicant Nos.2 to 4 are vague
and there are no specific instances of involvement of applicant Nos.2 to
4 are set out. On overall reading of the FIR and the charge-sheet, we
are of the opinion that there are no allegations against the present
applicant Nos.2 to 4, which constitute offences under sections 323 and
506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the
applicants. Hence, we are satisfied that the material produced by the
prosecution along with charge-sheet prima facie does not fulfill
ingredients of offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323 and 506
read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
KHUNTE
6/6 APL-1226.18.odt-Judgment
11. In the above circumstances, we pass following order:
i) Criminal Application No.1226 of 2018 is partly allowed.
ii) First Information Report No.864 of 2018 and charge-sheet
bearing Regular Criminal Case No.572 of 2018 pending
before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandrapur for the
offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323 and 506
read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against
applicant Nos.2 to 4 are quashed and set aside.
iii) The challenge to First Information Report No.864 of 2018
and the charge-sheet bearing Regular Criminal Case
No.572 of 2018 qua applicant no. 1 is dismissed as
withdrawn.
12. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
(AMIT B. BORKAR, J) (Z.A.HAQ, J)
KHUNTE
