Bombay High Court
Humayun Ansari S/O Ghalib Qumar ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Psops ... on 6 August, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
Judgment 1 apl762.20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 762/2020
1] Humayun Ansari S/O Ghalib Qumar Ansari,
Aged about 38 years,
Occ. Private Work,
2] Zulekha Begum W/O Ghalib Qumar Ansari,
Aged about 60 years, Occ. Household
3] Ghalib Qumar S/O Abdul Hafiz Farogh,
Aged about 65 years, Occ. Business,
Above all R/o. Plot No. 324, Naya Nakasha,
Opp. Badi Masjid, Lashkaribagh, Nagpur
4] Dr. Shahina W/O Ashfaque Ansari,
Aged about 42 years, Occ. Doctor,
C1/01, Celesta, Plot No. 151,
Sector No. 17, Spine Road,
Near RTO Office, Chikhli, Chikhli Bk. Pune
5] Bushra Qumar W/O Mohsin Ansari,
Aged about 32 years, Occ. Household
R/O 4th Floor, A-Wing, Yaseen Apartment,
Nhavi Pada, Kalyan Road, Bhiwandi Mumbai
6] Dr. Mahenaz Ahmad W/O Dr. Mukhtar Ahmad,
Aged about 34 years, Occ. Doctor,
R/O A-1-F/F, Maryam Residency, Near Nizami Pullia,
Sir Syed Nagar, Koil, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh
.... APPLICANT(S)
// VERSUS //
1] State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Vasantnagar, Pusad,
Tahsil Pusad, District Yavatmal
ANSARI
::: Uploaded on - 17/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2021 10:38:29 :::
Judgment 2 apl762.20.odt
2] Smt. Huma Nausheen Khan W/o Humayun Ansari,
Aged about 29 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. C/o Ishrat Ullah Khan Pathan (Rtd. PSI),
Vasant Nagar, Umar Farooq Marg, Pusad,
District Yavatmal
.... NON-APPLICANT(S)
*******************************************************************
Shri M. Hussain, Advocate for the applicant(s)
Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, APP for the non-applicant/State
Shri A. Subhan, Advocate (appt.) for the non-applicant no. 2
*******************************************************************
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
AUGUST 06, 2021
JUDGMENT : (PER:- AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)
1] Heard.
2] RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3] This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure challenging registration of F.I.R. No. 219/2020 dated 09/10/2020
registered with the non-applicant no. 1 - Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 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 applicants in collusion with each
ANSARI
Judgment 3 apl762.20.odt
other physically and mentally harassed the non-applicant no. 2 for non-
payment of dowry. It is alleged that it was misrepresented to the non-
applicant no. 2 that the applicant no. 1 was having income of Rs. 2-3 lakh
and persuaded the non-applicant no. 2 to marry with him though the
applicant no. 1 was already divorced. It is also alleged that after the marriage
for first period of six months, the non-applicant no. 2 was treated well but
thereafter the applicants harassed the non-applicant no. 2 for various
reasons. It is also alleged that though the non-applicant no. 2 was facing
constant physical and mental harassment, she was under the impression that
after delivery of her child, there will be improvement in the behaviour of the
applicants but the same did not happen, and therefore the non-applicant
no. 2 told her parents about the harassment caused to her by the applicants.
It is also alleged that due to the harassment by the applicants, the non-
applicant no. 2 was having thoughts about committing suicide but
considering the infant child of the non-applicant no. 2, she did not take the
extreme step of suicide. It is stated that even after return of the non-
applicant no. 2 from the parents home, the applicants continued their
harassment by threatening to divorce the non-applicant no. 2. The non-
applicant no. 2 therefore lodged the first information report with the non-
applicant no. 1 - Police Station. The applicants have therefore challenged
registration of the first information report by way of the present application.
ANSARI
Judgment 4 apl762.20.odt
5] This Court on 17/11/2020 issued notices to the non-applicants.
On 17/12/2020, this Court appointed Shri Abdul Subhan, Advocate to
represent the non-applicant no. 2. Shri Abdul Subhan, Advocate graciously
accepted the same.
6] In pursuance of the notice issued by this Court, the non-
applicant no. 1 has filed reply stating that the Investigating Agency has
recorded the statements of the parents and the brother of the non-applicant
no. 2 which are consistent with the allegations made by the non-applicant
no. 2 and therefore prayed for dismissal of the application. The non-applicant
no. 2 has also filed her reply and reiterated the accusations in the first
information report.
7] We have carefully considered the allegations in the first
information report. On overall consideration of the contents of the
application and the first information report, it appears that the applicant
no. 1 is the husband; the applicant no. 2 is the mother-in-law; the applicant
no. 3 is the father-in-law and the applicant nos. 4 to 6 are married sisters-in-
law of the non-applicant no. 2.
8] On careful scrutiny of the allegations in the first information
report, we find that there is no specific role attributed to the applicant nos. 2
ANSARI
Judgment 5 apl762.20.odt
to 6 by giving the details of the alleged physical and mental harassment
caused by them to the non-applicant no. 2. From reading of the first
information report, it appears that the allegations against the applicant
nos. 2 to 6 are vague and omnibus.
9] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Subba Rao vs.
State of Telangana reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452 has observed that
relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of vague
allegations, unless there are specific instances of their involvement in the
crime are made out. On careful consideration of the first information report,
we are satisfied that the allegations against the applicant nos. 2 to 6 are
vague in nature and the prosecution launched against them is not a
legitimate prosecution. Hence, we are of the opinion that continuance of the
present proceedings against the applicant nos. 2 to 6 would amount to abuse
of process of the Court.
10] Hence, the following order:-
(a) The proceedings in relation to F.I.R. No. 219/2020 dated
09/10/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections
498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
ANSARI
Judgment 6 apl762.20.odt
Code shall continue against the applicant no. 1 -
husband.
(b) F.I.R. No. 219/2020 dated 09/10/2020 registered with
the non-applicant no. 1 - Police Station against the
applicant nos. 2 to 6 for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.
(c) Shri Abdul Subhan, Advocate appointed to represent the
non-applicant no. 2 graciously declined to accept his
professional fees. This Court appreciates the gracious
conduct of Shri Abdul Subhan, Advocate.
Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms. Pending
application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE)
ANSARI
