Bombay High Court
Shaikh Abdul Karim Shaikh Sattar ... vs The State Of Mha. Thr. Police ... on 23 August, 2023
Bench: Vinay Joshi, Valmiki Sa Menezes
2023:BHC-NAG:9089-DB
Judgment apl1571.22
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] No. 1571/2022.
1.Shaikh Abdul Karim Shaikh Sattar,
Age 38 years, Occupation - Advocate,
resident of Gulshan Nagar, Near Aftab
Gym, Yavatmal, presently residing at
Kohinoor Colony, Near Panchakki,
Aurangabad [Husband].
2.Shaikh Sattar Shaikh Ismail,
Age 71 years, Occupation -
resident of Tayade Nagar, Awadhootwadi,
Yavatmal [Father-in-law].
3.Rajiyabi Shaikh Sattar,
Age 71 years, Occupation - Household,
resident of as above
[Mother-in-law].
4.Abdul Rahim Alias Sonu Abdul Sattar,
Age 37 years, Occupation -
resident of 3 and 4 Tahir Nagar,
Tayade Nagar, Yavatmal
[Brohter-in-law].
5.Shahista Rafiyuddin Kazi Alias Munna,
Age 41 years, Occupation - Household,
resident of Priyadarshini, Pathanpura,
Near, District Yavatmal
[Sister-in-law].
Rgd.
Judgment apl1571.22
2
6.Shagufta Roshan Khan,
Age 33 years, Occupation - Household,
resident of Sakalgaon, Post Jamb
Samarth, Ghansawangi, District Jalna.
[Sister-in-law].
7.Jeba Shaikh Anis,
Age 27 years, Occupation - Household,
resident of Aqsa Nagar, Jalgaon, Sarole,
District Jalgaon.
[Niece - daughter of Sister-in-law namely
Shama Jalil Khan]. ... APPLICANTS.
(Ori.Accused No.1 to 7)
VERSUS
1.The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Inspector,
Police Station Awdhootwadi,
District Yavatmal.
[Copy to be served on the
Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur.]
2.Shabnam Sheikh w/o Abdul Karim,
Age 34 years, Occupation Household,
Resident of c/o. Shaikh Harun,
Bilal Nagar, Yavatmal,
District Yavatmal. ... NON-APPLICANTS.
(No.2 Ori.Complainant)
---------------------------------
Mr. H. Pawar, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. N.R. Rode, A.P.P. for Non-applicant No.1.
Ms S.V. Upadhayay, Advocate for Non-applicant No.2.
----------------------------------
Rgd.
Judgment apl1571.22
3
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND
VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ.
DATE : AUGUST 23, 2023.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J) :
Heard. Admit.
By consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the
parties, the matter is taken by for final disposal.
2. By this application applicants have sought quashing of the
first information report bearing Crime No.1002/2022 registered with
Awdhootwadi Police Station, District Yavatmal for the offence
punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code along with Regular Criminal Case
No.929/2022 pending on the file of 2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior
Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yavatmal.
3. Applicants are husband and his nearer relatives. It is the
case of applicants that the allegations in the police papers are vague
Rgd.
Judgment apl1571.22
and omnibus. Entire family members of husband, including married
sisters have been falsely implicated to pressurize the husband.
According to applicants, the prosecution is actuated with malafide,
therefore, continuation of prosecution amounts to abuse of the
process of Court.
4. The State, as well as the learned Counsel appearing for
the informant/non-applicant no.2, have resisted the application. It is
submitted that after few months of the marriage, the informant was
subjected to physical, as well as mental cruelty. Time and again all
family members insisted the informant to meet unlawful monetary
demand and on that count she was harassed and compelled to leave
her matrimonial house. It is submitted that the material collected
during the course of investigation is sufficient to put applicants on
trial.
5. Facts of the case in brief are that the informant - lady got
married to applicant no.1 on 28.01.2018. After 8 months, she
resumed co-habitation with her husband and other family members.
Rgd.
Judgment apl1571.22
It is her contention that since inception, applicants have humiliated
her by stating that she belongs to poor family and unable to do
household work. She was also humiliated on account of not
providing offering in the marriage and insisted her to meet monetary
demand of Rs.15 lakhs. The informant stated that two months
precedent to the lodging of the police report, her husband left her
company which compelled her to stay with her parents.
6. This is one another usual case wherein the wife alleges
about matrimonial cruelty against husband, in-laws and other
relatives of the husband. Undisputedly the couple got married on
28.01.2018, and after 8 months they had undergone religious
ceremony and started to cohabit. It reveals from the police report
and statements of witnesses that besides general allegations against
all family members, there is nothing specific or particular allegations
against other relatives. True, we do find allegations against the
husband about harassment, physical abuse and inhumanly treatment
meted to the wife. The learned Counsel for applicants would submit
that the informant-lady has unnecessarily hauled all the married
Rgd.
Judgment apl1571.22
sisters of husband i.e. applicant nos. 5 to 7, though they are residing
separately. In support of said contention, marriage certificates of
sisters of husband are produced, which shows that they got married
much earlier i.e. on 15.05.2006, 12.01.2014 and 22.06.2018.
Apparently, they got married prior to the informant's marriage and
obviously are staying with their respective family. It is not the case
of informant that they used to stay with the couple, but, it is alleged
that intermittently they used to visit and harass her. In absence of
specific allegations, it is difficult to accept the contention that they
also joined the husband in the act of harassment.
7. The learned Counsel for applicants relied on the decision
of Supreme Court in case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and
others .vrs. State of Bihar and others - Criminal Appeal No.195/2022
decided on 08.02.2022 to contend that there is large scale of misuse
of provisions of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, and growing
tendency to implicate relatives of husband in matrimonial dispute.
Our attention has been invited to paragraph nos.18 and 19 of the
said decision, which reads as under :
Rgd.
Judgment apl1571.22
"18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this court has at numerous
instances expressed concern over the misuse of
section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of
implicating relatives of the husband in
matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long
term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as
well as the accused. It is further manifest from the
said judgments that false implication by way of
general omnibus allegations made in the course of
matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would
result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore,
this court by way of its judgments has warned the
courts from proceeding against the relatives and
in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case
is made out against them.
19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a
perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19,
it is revealed that general allegations are levelled
against the Appellants. The complainant alleged
that 'all accused harassed her mentally and
threatened her of terminating her pregnancy'.
Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations
have been made against either of the Appellants
herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been
attributed any specific role in furtherance of the
general allegations made against them. This
simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to
ascertain the role played by each accused in
furtherance of the offence. The allegations are
Rgd.
Judgment apl1571.22
therefore general and omnibus and can at best be
said to have been made out on account of small
skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since
he has not appealed against the order of the High
court, we have not examined the veracity of
allegations made against him. However, as far as
the Appellants are concerned, the allegations
made against them being general and omnibus,
do not warrant prosecution."
8. Besides that the learned Counsel for applicants has relied
on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Mirza Iqbal @ Golu
and another .vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another - [2021] 9 SCR
469, and of this Court in cases of Sau.Mangala Ramdas Medhane and
others .vrs. State of Maharashtra - [2022] 1 Bom CR [Cri]235 and
Pradeep Vilas Awasarmol and others .vrs. The State of Maharashtra -
Criminal Application No.652/2023 decided on 21.06.2023, to submit
that on the basis of vague and bald allegations against the relative,
the prosecution is not tenable.
9. We have re-examined the entire material to find out the
prima facie case. As regards to the husband, we do find certain
Rgd.
Judgment apl1571.22
allegations in the first information report, as well as in prior notice
issued by the wife. It reveals from the record that after few days
from the marriage the couple started to reside separately which has
worsen the case against the relatives. Having regard to the case of
applicants and the material placed on record, except vague and bald
allegations against the relatives of husband, there is nothing specific
disclosing the involvement of other applicants to prosecute them for
the alleged offences. General and vague allegations without
specification would not further the prosecution to establish the case
of cruelty. Thus, there is no prima facie material against applicants,
except husband. Continuation of such prosecution against them
amounts to abuse of the process of Court. However, the case of
husband materially differs.
10. In view of above Criminal Application is partly allowed.
The first information report bearing Crime No.1002/2022 registered
with Awdhootwadi Police Station, District Yavatmal for the offence
punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code along with Regular Criminal Case
Rgd.
Judgment apl1571.22
No.929/2022 pending on the file of 2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior
Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yavatmal is hereby
quashed and set aside, so far as it relates to Applicant Nos.[2]Shaikh
Sattar Shaikh Ismail, [3] Rajiyabi Shaikh Sattar, [4] Abdul Rahim
Alias Sonu Abdul Sattar, [5] Shahista Rafiyuddin Kazi Alias Munna,
[6] Shagufta Roshan Khan and [7] Jeba Shaikh Anis, only.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 24/08/2023 10:04:45
