Bombay High Court
Rani @ Reshma W/O. Sattar Shaikh ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 1 February, 2021
Bench: T.V. Nalawade, M. G. Sewlikar
1 criwp914.19 J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 914 OF 2019
1) Rani @ Reshma w/o Sattar Shaikh,
Age; 39 years, Occ; Household,
R/o; Near Aniket Hotel Patoda,
Tq. Patoda, District Beed.
2) Iram D/o Sattar Shaikh,
Age; 19 years, Occ; Household,
R/o; As above. ...Petitioners
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector,
Tofkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar,
Tq. and District Ahmednagar.
2) Reshma Imran Shaikh,
Age; 25 years, Occ; Nil,
R/o; C/o; Salima Abbas Khan,
House No. 52/6, Sahara Corner
Mukund Nagar Ahmednagar,
Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar. ..Respondents
.................................................................................
Shri Mahesh S. Bhosale, Advocate for the Petitioners
Shri G.O. Wattamwar, learned A.P.P. for Respondent No. 1
Shri A.R. Tapse, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2
.................................................................................
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE &
M.G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.
Date :- 01/02/2021
::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2021 17:10:11 :::
2 criwp914.19 J
JUDGMENT [PER : M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.] :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the
parties, heard finally at the admission stage.
2. This writ petition is preferred by the petitioners for quashing of
the First Information Report (F.I.R.) No. I-663 of 2019 and the charge-
sheet No. I-107 of 2019 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under Section 498-A,
323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Facts giving rise to this petition are that respondent No. 2 (the
informant herein) has lodged FIR on 1.5.2019 against the
petitioners/accused alleging therein that she married on 3.1.2019 at
Ahmednagar. Petitioner No. 1 is sister-in-law of respondent No. 2 and
petitioner No. 2 is the daughter of petitioner No. 1.
4. It is alleged in the FIR that right from the date of marriage, the
husband of respondent No. 2 started harassing her saying that respondent
No. 2's mother and brother did not perform the marriage well. Food was
not of good quality. Relatives were not properly honoured. Dowry was not
given. Her husband and her father-in-law used to harass her and beat her.
Her husband used to beat her saying that he has married her against his
will. It is further alleged that when her husband started demanding
::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2021 17:10:11 :::
3 criwp914.19 J
Rs.7,00,000/- for purchasing a four wheeler petitioners, her husband and
her father-in-law beat her mercilessly. On 11.02.2019 she was driven out
of the house on account of non fulfillment of unlawful demand. On these
allegations respondent No. 2 lodged report with Tofkhana police station,
Ahmednagar on the basis of which offences punishable under Sections
498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
have been registered against petitioners and others.
5. Heard Shri Mahesh S. Bhosale, learned counsel for the
Petitioners Shri G.O. Wattamwar, learned A.P.P. for Respondent No. 1 and
Shri A.R. Tapse, learned counsel for Respondent No.2.
6. Shri Bhosale, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the petitioners are not staying with respondent No. 2 and her
husband. They are staying at Patoda, District Beed and in proof of that
they have produced Adhar Cards. He further submitted that vague
allegations are made against the petitioners. Therefore, no cognizable
offence is made out against the petitioners.
7. Shri Wattamwar, learned APP for respondent No. 1 and Shri
Tapse, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 argued that specific
allegations are made against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. Shri Tapse, learned
counsel for respondent No. 2 further submitted that these are the matters
to be taken into consideration at the stage of trial. Petitioners are the
::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2021 17:10:11 :::
4 criwp914.19 J
near relatives of respondent No. 2 and therefore, FIR cannot be quashed
against them. Shri Tapse, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 placed
reliance on the case of Taramani Prakash Versus State of M.P. &
Ors.- 2015 DGLS(SC) 320 (Supreme Court).
8. On perusal of the papers annexed with the petition, it is seen
that only allegation against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 is that both of them
were along with the husband of respondent No. 2 and her father-in-law,
her elder sister-in-law (wife of elder brother of her husband), another
sister-in-law beat respondent No. 2 when her husband started demanding
Rs. 7,00,000/- for purchasing a four wheeler. They were insisting on her
that this amount should be brought from her parents.
9. These are the vague allegations and on the basis of such
vague allegations, it cannot be said that a cognizable offence is made out
against the petitioners. No other allegation is made against the
petitioners. No details as regards date and time are mentioned in the FIR.
Therefore, on the basis of such vague and general allegations, it cannot
be said that there is any possibility of conviction.
10. In Taramani Prakash Versus State of M.P. & Ors. (cited
supra) it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under :
"There are allegations against Respondent No. 2 and
his parents for harassing the complainant which forced
her to leave the matrimonial home. Even now she
continues to be separated from the matrimonial home
::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2021 17:10:11 :::
5 criwp914.19 J
as she apprehends lack of security and safety and
proper environment in the matrimonial home. The
question whether the appellant has infact been
harassed and treated with cruelty is a matter of trial
but at this stage, it cannot be said that no case is made
out. Thus, quashing of proceedings before the trial is
not permissible."
11. In the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it appears that there
were allegations against the relatives of the wife. In the case at hand the
allegations are too vague to make out any case against the petitioners.
12. Moreover, petitioners are not residing at matrimonial place of
respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2's husband is the resident of
Suryanagar, Ahmednagar, whereas, petitioners are residing at Patoda,
District Beed. In the case of Taramani Prakash Versus State of M.P.
& Ors. (cited supra) it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
that
"A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all
relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the
matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is
likely to affect the case of the prosecution even
against the real culprits."
13. In this view of the matter, continuation of prosecution would
be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Hence we are inclined to allow
the petition. Therefore, following order is passed :
ORDER
1) The Criminal Writ Petition is allowed.
6 criwp914.19 J
2) Relief is granted in terms of prayer clause 'C'.
3) Rule is made absolute in those terms.
( M.G. SEWLIKAR ) ( T.V. NALAWADE )
JUDGE JUDGE
mahajansb/
