Mohd. Nadeem Ahmed Bijle And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 11158 Bom

                                             1/3
                                                                        12.APL.1248.2019..doc


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1248 OF 2019

Mohd. Nadeem Ahmed Bijle & Ors.                                   ...Applicants
     V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                                   ... Respondents

Mr. Mubin Solkar a/w Mr. Tahir Husain, Adv. Anees Shaikh i/b Zara Salati for the Applicants.

Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for Respondent-State. Mr. Meghshyam Kocharekar a/w. Adv. Sakshil Pangarkar i/b Mr. Sufian for Respondent No.2.

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE & N. R. BORKAR, JJ

DATED : 31st OCTOBER, 2023 P.C.:

1. We have heard the respective Counsels.

2. The prayer is for quashing of the FIR in Crime No 66 of 2019

registered on 01/04/2019 for the offence punishable u/s. 498A,

406, 323, 504 r/w. 34 of IPC.

3. It is claimed by the Respondent No. 2/Complainant that the

offence of cruelty is committed in between 28/12/2014 to

24/04/2018.

4. The fact remains that the Applicant No. 1 and Respondent

No. 2 got married on 28/12/2014 and are blessed with a son, who

is in the custody of the Respondent No. 2/Complainant.

akn 1/3

12.APL.1248.2019..doc

5. It appears that the Applicant No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 are

dentist by profession and at present the Applicant No. 1 is settled

in Hong Kong. After the marriage, it appears that the Respondent

No. 2/Complainant went with Applicant No. 1 to Saudi Arabia.

Thereafter, she returned back to India and the Applicant No. 1

having awarded scholarship for improving his qualification went to

Honk Kong.

6. The Perusal of the FIR depicts that there are certain

differences on petty issues, which is a usual phenomena in

married life of everybody, however, the main issue appears to be

the act of the Applicant No. 1 for not taking the Respondent No. 2/

Complainant to Honk Kong alongwith him.

7. The FIR depicts the instances which are from the day one of

the marriage i.e. 2014. The instances though speaks of months

and years of alleged cruelty, however, the allegations are general,

non-specific and vague in nature.

8. We are required to draw support from the judgment of Apex

Court in the matter of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam & Ors

vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599

wherein the Apex Court has held that the general, non-specific

and vague allegations cannot be relied on for the purpose of

akn 2/3

12.APL.1248.2019..doc

continuing the prosecution.

9. In that view of the matter, RULE.

10. There shall be stay to the further proceedings.

11. Mr. Kocharekar waives service of notice on behalf of the

Respondent No. 2.

            (N. R. BORKAR, J)        (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)




akn                                    3/3