Bombay High Court
Zahid Ahmed S/O Mohammad Farukh ... vs State Of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Saoner ... on 4 January, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Anil S. Kilor
23-apl-126-2020(Jug).odt
1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.126 OF 2020
1. Zahid Ahmed s/o. Mohammad Farukh,
aged about 35 years, Occ. Therapist.
2. Mohammad Farukh s/o. Raziuddin,
aged about 65 years, Occ. Private.
3. Haseena Begum w/o. Mohammad Farukh,
aged about 58 years, Occ. Housewife.
4. Adil Rashid s/o. Mohammad Farukh,
aged about 43 years, Occ. Private.
5. Rubina Naz w/o. Adil Rashid,
aged about 36 years, Occ. Housewife.
6. Shahid Ahmad s/o. Mohammad Farukh,
aged about 35 years, Occ. Private.
7. Samira w/o. Shahid Ahmed,
aged about 30 years, Occ. Housewife,
1 to 7 R/o. Amna abad Kautha road,
Kamptee road Naka No.2, Nagpur.
8. Heena Kausar w/o Mohammad Mushtaque,
aged about 25 years, Occ. Housewife,
R/o. Raza Town Jaripatka Nagar,
P.S.O. Jaripatka, Nagpur.
9. Bobby w/o. Dhanbahadur Subba,
Aged about 44 years, Occ. Private Plot No.121,
Amna Aabad, Kamptee road, Naka No.2,
Jaripatka, Nagpur. .... APPLICANTS
// VERSUS //
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O., Saoner, Police Station,
Dist. Nagpur.
2. Najma w/o. Mohammad Zahid,
aged about 29 years, Occ. Housewife,
R/o. C/o. Mehmood Shah,
near Shahi Masjid Chichpura Saoner,
Dist. Nagpur. .... NON-APPLICANTS
::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 15:42:47 :::
23-apl-126-2020(Jug).odt
2/6
Shri S.S. Ullah, the learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri M.J. Khan, the learned Additional Public prosecutor for State.
Shri M. Yejajul, the learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2.
________________________________________________________________
CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATE : 04th JANUARY, 2021.
JUDGMENT: [PER: ANIL S. KILOR, J.]
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The matter is
heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By the present application under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Prosedure, the applicants are praying for quashing
of the First Information Report vide crime No.342 of 2018 and the
chargesheet whcih was culminated into Regular Criminal Case
No.01 of 2019, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The non-applicant No.2 is the complainant and wife of
applicant No.1. The applicant No.2 is the father, the applicant No.3
is the mother as well as applicant Nos.4 and 6 are the brothers of
applicant No.1, whereas applicant Nos.5 and 7 are the wives of
applicant Nos.4 and 6 respectively and the applicant Nos.8 and 9 are
the close relatives of applicant No.1.
::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 15:42:47 :::
23-apl-126-2020(Jug).odt
3/6
4. It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant No.1
and non-applicant No.2 got married on 03.03.2017 and thereafter,
the First Information Report in question has been lodged by the non-
applicant No.2 on 19.06.2018, alleging therein that there was a
demand of Rs.10,00,000/- from the applicants and she was
illtreated on the said ground of demand. Accordingly, the crime in
question was registered against the applicants which is sought to be
quashed and set aside in the present matter.
5. We have heard Shri S.S. Ullah, the learned counsel for
the applicants, Shri M.J. Khan, the learned Additional Public
prosecutor for the State, so also Shri M. Yejajul, the learned counsel
for the non-applicant No.2, who has recorded his appearance today
by filing Vakalatnama, which is taken on record and marked as 'X'.
6. The learned counsel for the applicants and non-
applicant no.2, have jointly pointed out that the applicant No.1 and
non-applicant No.2 have settled their dispute and arrived at a
compromise which is filed at Page No.18 of the Paper Book.
7. It is further pointed out that they both have decided to
dissolve their marriage as per Mohammedan law and accordingly,
non-applicant No.2 has asked for "Khula" and thereafter applicant
::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 15:42:47 :::
23-apl-126-2020(Jug).odt
4/6
No.1-Zahid to give "Talaq" on deposit of one time maintenance,
which is fixed to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-.
8. It is further submitted that a Demand Draft of
Rs.2,00,000/- towards one time maintenance, agreed by the parties
as per the compromise, is drawn and the true copy of the same is
filed on record at Page No.24 of the Paper Book.
9. The learned counsel for the applicants and non-
applicant No.2 therefore, jointly prayed that the present application
may be allowed in view of the fact that the dispute involved in the
present matter is purely a matrimonial and the applicant No.1 and
non-applicant No.2, they both have resolved their dispute by
arriving at a compromise.
10. Today when the matter was heard, the non-applicant
No.2 as well as the applicant No.1 both were personally present in
the Court and they both have been identified by their respective
counsels.
11. This Court has interacted with non-applicant No.2 to
find out the veracity of the statements made by the learned counsel
for the applicants and non-applicant No.2 about the compromise
between the parties.
::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 15:42:47 :::
23-apl-126-2020(Jug).odt
5/6
12. The non-applicant No.2 has admitted that the matter
has already been resolved and as per the compromise, the Demand
Draft of Rs.2,00,000/- is drawn and same would be handed over to
her immediately on quashing of the First Information Report as well
as the chargesheet in question.
13. In the above referred backdrop, since the applicant
No.1 and non-applicant No.2 both are present in the Court along
with their respective counsel and since the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor is representing the non-applicant/State, we are of the
opinion that since the present matter is in respect of the matrimonial
dispute, it can be disposed of in view of the compromise, even
without issuing notice to the non-applicant/State.
14. In the above referred backdrop, as the matter has
already been compromise between the applicant No.1 and the non-
applicant No.2 as per the Compromise Petition filed at Page No.18 of
the Paper Book and since the non-applicant No.2, during interaction
in the Court, has admitted the fact of a compromise, we are of the
considered view that this is a fit case wherein this Court should
exercise its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 15:42:47 :::
23-apl-126-2020(Jug).odt
6/6
15. Moreover, on merit also after going through the First
Information Report and chargesheet, we find that the allegations are
vague and general in nature and no specific overt act is attributed
against any of the applicants and therefore, provision of Section
498-A of the Indian Penal Code as well as provision of Sections 3
and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act would not attract in the present
matter against the applicants. In that view of the matter, we pass
following order:
ORDER
i) The criminal application is allowed.
ii) The First Information Report No.342 of 2018, dated
19.06.2018, against the applicants for the offence punishable under
Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well
as Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the
chargesheet, are hereby quashed and set aside as well as the Regular
Criminal Case No. 01/2019 is dropped.
iii) The application is dispose of, no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
nd.thawre
