Bombay High Court
Rehanabi W/O. Mushoroddin Kazi ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 12 January, 2021
Bench: T.V. Nalawade, M. G. Sewlikar
1 criappln150.20-J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 150 OF 2020
1) Rehanabi w/o Mushoroddin Kazi,
Age; 65 years, Occ; Household,
R/o; Vita Bhatti, Near Durga Mata Mandir,
Deopur, Dhule, District; Dhule.
2) Shabanabi w/o Faridkhan
Age; 43 years, Occ; Household,
R/o; Ahbab Colony, Ravindra Nagar,
Katkat Gate Road, Aurangabad.
3) Shabina w/o Shaikh Imran,
Age; 29 years, Occ; Household,
R/o; Vita Bhatti, Near Durga Mata Mandir,
Deopur, Dhule, District Dhule.
4) Rizwana w/o Shaikh Akbar,
Age; 35 years, Occ; Household, ...APPLICANTS
R/o; Hazar Kholi, Behind Public Hospital, (Orig. Accused
Dhule, District Dhule. Nos. 2 to 5)
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra
2) Heena w/o Azhar Kazi,
Age; 28 years, Occ; Household, ..RESPONDENTS
R/o; C/o; Ayyubkhan Gafoorkhan, (Resp. No. 2 is
Khaja Nagar, Near Madina Masjid Original
Chalisgaon, District; Jalgaon. Complainant)
..........................................
Shri. Hemantkumar F. Pawar, Advocate for the Applicants
Shri M.M.Nerlikar, learned A.P.P.for Respondent No.1
Shri. Shaikh Shamsuddin Q., Advocate for Respondent No.2
.......................................
::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 13:22:41 :::
2 criappln150.20-J
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE &
M.G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.
DATE : 12/01/2021
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. Applicants have preferred this application under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (Cr.P.C.) for quashing of the
First Information Report, (F.I.R.) No. 279 of 2019, registered with
Deopur Police Station, Dhule, District Dhule for the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and under Section 3 and 4 of the The Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.
3. Facts giving rise to this application are that respondent No.
2 (the informant herein) married one Azar Mushoroddin Kazi on
22/05/2011. Applicant No. 1 is the mother-in-law and applicant Nos. 2
to 4 are the sister-in-laws of respondent No. 2.
4. It is alleged in the FIR that respondent No. 2 was
maintained well for about one month after the marriage and thereafter,
her husband and her in-laws started saying that respondent No. 2 and
3 criappln150.20-J
her parents did not give dowry as per the demand of her husband and
her in-laws. They were not properly honoured in the marriage and on
that count they started ill-treating respondent No. 2 physically and
mentally. Applicant Nos. 3 and 4 used to come to their maternal place
after every 8 to 15 days and used to instigate her husband and
applicant No. 1. Because of their instigation her husband and applicant
No. 1 used to beat her. In the year 2012, she was pregnant. Her
husband attempted to set her on fire by dousing her with kerosene oil,
on the ground that she had cooked food in excess quantity. She some
how rescued her. She did not lodge FIR at that time as she wanted to
cohabit with her husband. During her pregnancy again her husband
beat her as she did not wash his clothes properly. He had kicked her in
her abdomen and always used to threaten her that she would be
stabbed by means of knife. On 30.09.2012 she delivered a baby girl,
but none of the in-laws came to see her daughter. In the year 2014,
her husband demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- from her for converting the
cloth shop into showroom and for purchasing ready made cloths for
the shop. Applicant No. 2 also used to instigate applicant No. 1 and the
husband of respondent No. 2 whenever, she came to Dhule, i.e. at her
maternal place. On 10.9.2019, she cooked 'Chapati' in excess quantity
on account of roza. Her husband and applicant No. 1 got agitated on
that count and she was beaten by them. Her daughter Alia informed
parents of respondent No. 2 about the ill-treatment. Her parents came
there on 10.9.2019 and tried to convince the applicants and her
4 criappln150.20-J
husband but the applicants continued ill-treatment to her. Her
husband dragged her out of house and started beating her. Her
husband in the presence of Jahur Baig, Manwar Baig, Shaikh Ayaj
Shaikh Firoj, Parshuram Ramdas Patil and Mahemood Osman Syed
gave her divorce by pronouncing triple talaq. Therefore, she had also
lodged complaint on 18.9.2019 with Deopur Police Station. She had
lodged complaint at Women's Redressal Cell at Dhule, but it did not
yield any positive result, therefore, she lodged the instant FIR on
24.11.2019 on the basis of which, crime under the aforesaid sections
came to be registered against the applicants.
5. Heard Shri. Hemantkumar F. Pawar, the learned counsel for
the applicants, Shri M.M.Nerlikar, learned A.P.P. for respondent No.1
and Shri. Shaikh Shamsuddin Q. the learned counsel for respondent
No.2.
6. Shri Pawar, the learned counsel for the applicants argued
that vague and general allegations are made against applicant Nos. 1
to 4. He submitted that entire allegations of ill-treatment and demand
of dowry are against the husband of respondent No. 2. He submitted
that even if the entire allegations are accepted to be true, no offence
against applicant Nos. 1 to 4 can be said to be made out. Therefore,
their case is squarely covered by the parameters laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Haryana and Ors.
5 criappln150.20-J
V/s. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors; AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 604". In
this view of the matter, if prosecution is allowed to be continued, it
would be nothing but an exercise in futility.
7. Shri M.M. Nerlikar, learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State
and Shaikh Shamsuddin Q. the learned counsel for respondent No.2
argued that specific allegations have been made against the
applicants. It is alleged that applicant Nos. 2 to 4 used to instigate the
husband of respondent No. 2 and applicant No. 1. At their instigation,
applicant No. 1 and the husband of respondent No. 2 used to beat her
and subjected her to cruelty physically and mentally. They submitted
that offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is clearly made out.
8. So far as, applicant No. 1 is concerned, during arguments,
we expressed our dis-inclination to grant any relief to applicant No. 1,
Shri Pawar, learned counsel for applicant No. 1 sought permission to
withdraw the application to the extent of applicant No. 1. Permission
was accorded.
9. So far as, applicant Nos. 2 to 4 are concerned, in the FIR
itself it is stated that applicant No. 2 is residing separately at
Aurangabad and applicant Nos. 3 and 4 are living separately at Dhule.
It is vaguely alleged that whenever applicant Nos. 2 to 4 came to her
maternal place, they instigated applicant No. 1 and the husband of
6 criappln150.20-J
respondent No. 2 to ill-treat respondent No. 2. It is vaguely mentioned
that upon their instigation, applicant No. 1 and the husband of
respondent No. 2 used to beat her and ill-treat her. These allegations
are as vague as they could be.
10. They do not take prosecution case any further. On the basis
of these allegations it cannot be said that any cognizable offence is
made out against applicant Nos. 2 to 4. On perusal of FIR, it is clear
that entire allegations of ill-treatment are against the applicant No. 1
and the husband of respondent No. 2. The allegations are also to the
effect that the husband of respondent No.2 made the demand of dowry
and made demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- for purchase of ready made cloths
and for converting the cloth shop of husband of respondent No. 2 into a
Showroom. This clearly shows that the grievance of respondent No. 2
is against her husband and applicant No. 1. The contents of FIR do not
indicate that applicant Nos. 2 to 4 had made unlawful demand of
money. On the basis of these vague allegations, it cannot be said that
any cognizable offence is made out against applicant Nos. 2 to 4. In the
case of Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of U.P. and
another [2013 (1) Mh. L.J. (Cri.) 570], the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held as under :
"what we wish to emphasize by highlighting is
that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose
specific allegation against accused more so against
the co-accused specially in a matter arising out of
matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of
7 criappln150.20-J
the legal and judicial process to mechanically send
the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial
unless of course the FIR discloses specific
allegations which would persuade the Court to take
cognizance of the offence alleged against the
relatives of the main accused who are prima facie
not found to have indulged in physical and mental
torture of the complainant-wife."
11. No overt act is attributed to any of applicant Nos. 2 to 4.
No details of ill-treatment are given. The dates on which she was
subjected to ill-treatment are also not given, therefore, continuation of
the prosecution against applicant Nos. 2 to 4 would be an abuse of
process of law and it would be an exercise in futility. Therefore, we are
inclined to grant relief to applicant Nos. 2 to 4. In view of this,
following order is passed :
ORDER
1) Application of applicant No. 1 is disposed of as
withdrawn.
2) Applicant of applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 is
allowed.
3) Relief is granted in terms of prayer clause 'B'.
4) Rule is made absolute in those terms.
( M.G. SEWLIKAR ) ( T.V. NALAWADE )
JUDGE JUDGE
mahajansb/
