Bombay High Court
Sahida Begum Ajim Sheikh And 5 Others vs The State Of Mha. Thr. Pso Ps Kalamna ... on 1 August, 2024
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2024:BHC-NAG:8307-DB
1 apl.1560.2022-J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1560 OF 2022
1. Sahida Begum Ajim Sheikh,
Aged about 6 yrs., Occ. : Housewife,
2. Salim Sheikh Ajim Sheikh,
Aged about 39 yrs., Occ. : Private.
3. Neha Parveen Naushaad Sheikh,
Aged about 26 yrs., Occ. : Household,
4. Wasim Sheikh Ajim Sheikh,
Aged about 32 yrs., Occ.: Private,
5. Irfan Sheikh Ajim Sheikh,
Aged about 30 yrs., Occ.: Private,
All R/o. Plot No. 09, Tukaram Nagar,
Old Kamthi Road, P. S. Kalamana, Nagpur.
6. Tabassum Bano @ Noori Sheikh
Wasim Sheikh,
Aged about 31 yrs., Occ. : Housewife,
R/o. Sai Nagar, Near HK Computers,
P. S. Shantinagar, Nagpur. ... APPLICANTS
...VERSUS...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
P.S.O., P. S. Kalamna, Nagpur,
Dist. Nagpur.
2. Nilam @ Sonam Irshaad Sheikh,
Aged about 23 yrs., Occ. : Household,
R/o. Old Kamthi Road,
Behind Shivshakti Bear Bar,
P. S. Kalamna, Nagpur. ...NON-APPLICANTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M. N. Ali, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. S. S. Doifode, A.P.P. for Non-applicant/State.
Mr. S. N. Shende, Advocate for Non-applicant No.2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 apl.1560.2022-J.odt
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 01.08.2024.
JUDGMENT (PER : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.):
-
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. The matter is taken up for final disposal by consent
of learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
3. Applicants have filed this application under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of First Information Report in
Crime No. 787/2021 registered with the Police Station Kalamna, District
Nagpur filed against these applicants on the complaint lodged by the non-
applicant No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 354,
509 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and charge-sheet bearing R.C.C.
No.4892/2021 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Nagpur.
4. The prosecution case in brief is as under :
All these applicants are the in-laws of the first informant. The
applicant No.1 is the mother-in-law, applicant No.2, 4 and 5 are the
brother-in-law of the non-applicant No.2, applicant No.3 is the wife of
applicant No.2 and applicant No.6 is the sister-in-law. The marriage of
3 apl.1560.2022-J.odt
the non-applicant No.2 was performed with accused No.1 on 28.06.2020.
After the marriage, she started staying with all these applicants. She has
made allegations that after the marriage, on third day, the mother-in-law
had shown the photo albums of the earlier marriages of other family
member with intention to show her how much dowry and the gifts were
given in the earlier marriage. All the applicants used to pass comments
on her for not bringing sufficient dowry and also used to harass her for
household work. She has made allegations that her husband also asked
her to bring money from her father as he has not given sufficient dowry
and used to keep her on starvation and locked her in room. He also used
to beat her by abusing her. After few days, she went to her maternal
home and has narrated about the harassment. At that time, her father has
given dressing table and some furniture. Then also they harassed her and
they used to torture her for miscellaneous things. Her husband beat her
and by calling her father he asked him to take her back and drop her only
after bringing money. Therefore, for ten months she stayed at her
maternal home and thereafter she has lodged the complaint against all
these applicants.
5. The complaint was lodged on 07.10.2021 and the crime is
registered against these applicants. On 20.10.2021 she has given a
supplementary statement stating that she has not given the correct name
of her co-sister-in-law i.e. Neha Parveen Naushaad Sheikh i.e. applicant
4 apl.1560.2022-J.odt
No.3 and she has also added the name of Noori Sheikh, applicant No.6 as
she was forgotten to add her name at the time of lodging the First
Information Report. Again on 25.10.2021 she has given the
supplementary statement in detail and has made allegations against her
brother-in-law about misbehaving with her and she has given some
details about her mehar and not giving the new clothes at the time of
engagement and marriage. The charge-sheet is filed in this case.
6. The learned Counsel for the applicants has stated that the
non-applicant No.2 is taking education in 3 rd year L.L.B.. She is aware
about the legal procedure. She has made false allegations against all
these applicants. She has roped all the family members in this crime.
7. The learned Counsel for the applicants has relied on the
judgment of the Kansraj Vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in
(2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases 207, in which, it is observed 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. In the cases, where accusations are made, the over-acts
attributed to persons other than husband, are required to be proved
beyond reasonable doubt." Their Lordships of Apex Court further observed
that, "in their over-enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for
5 apl.1560.2022-J.odt
maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be
making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the
case of the prosecution even against the real accused."
8. No specific allegations are made against any of the applicants.
The husband and the brother-in-law against whom she has made the
allegations about the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is
not the applicant here. No specific incident is mentioned. Hence, prayed
to quash the First Information Report and the charge-sheet filed against
these applicants.
9. Learned A.P.P. opposed the application stating that the serious
allegations are made against all the applicants. The role is also mentioned.
The demand is there. The comments were passed by the sisters-in-law of
the applicant. Prima facie, the case is made out against all these
applicants. Hence, prayed to reject the application.
10. Heard both the learned Counsel.
11. The allegation about demand by all these applicants and the
torture for trifle reasons is mentioned against all these applicants. As per
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the cruelty does not make each
and every harassment. The harassment has to be with a definite object,
6 apl.1560.2022-J.odt
namely to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand. Vague allegations about the demand is made without
mentioning the specific amount, the period when they demanded. The
omnibus allegation is made against the entire family members. She has
given the supplementary statements and twice she has added the persons
and allegations against the family members. It appears that serious
allegations are made against her brother-in-law in second supplementary
statement. She must have mentioned it in her first complaint only
considering the gravity of allegations. Though she was staying with the
applicant No.3, who is her co-sister-in-law, she has not stated her correct
name with whom she was staying, which creates doubt. The sister-in-
law, who was not staying with them and staying at her matrimonial
house is also afterwards arrayed in this case.
12. The term cruelty has been defined in the explanation to
Section 498-A. Hence, it is not any and every cruelty that is made
punishable but only the cruelty as defined under the explanation.
Explanation (a) provides that curtly means any wilful conduct which is of
such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of a woman. The
allegations made against all these applicants does not come under the
purview of Section (a) of the provisions under Section 498-A of the
Indian Penal Code.
7 apl.1560.2022-J.odt
13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
judgment of the Ravindra Pyarelal Bidlan and Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in 1993 BCI 125, in which the difference between
the cruelty under clauses (a) and (b) is explained. He has also relied on
the judgment of this Court at Principal Seat in Bhagwan Sakharam Said
and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2002 (Supp.) Bom. C.R.
(Cri.) 420. The Court has come to the conclusion, the cruelty within the
meaning of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is required to be
proved. In Gopal Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2009 DGLS(SC) 220,
the Court has observed that so far as Section 498-A(b) is concerned, there
must be an evidence of demand of dowry. In support of his argument, he
has also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Kerala High Court Niyas Vs.
The State of Kerala [Cri. Rev. Pet. No. 1 of 2007] that every cruelty does
not come under the purview of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
14. On perusal of the First Information Report and as time to time
the non-applicant No.2, who is law student has given the supplementary
statement and added the incidents and the names of the family members
shows that there is no prima facie case made out against these applicants.
Only to rope all the family members of the husband, the allegations are
made.
15. In view of the above said observations, no prima facie case is
8 apl.1560.2022-J.odt
made out against all these applicants. Hence, the application is allowed.
16. We hereby quash and set aside the First Information Report in
Crime No. 787/2021 registered with the Police Station Kalamna, District
Nagpur and charge-sheet bearing R.C.C. No.4892/2021 pending before
the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur for the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A, 354, 509 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the
applicants.
17. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of
accordingly.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)
RGurnule
Signed by: Mrs. R.M. MANDADE
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 02/08/2024 15:26:21
