Bombay High Court
Mohammad Shafakat @ Hussain S/O ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, ... on 16 October, 2024
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: Vinay Joshi
2024:BHC-NAG:11577-DB
apl 813.21.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 813/2021
1. Mohammad Shafakat alias Hussain
s/o. Mohammad Majid, aged about
68 yrs., Occ. Labourer, Father-in-law,
2. Shahnaz Bano w/o Mohammad Shafakat,
Aged about 56 yrs., Occ. Household,
Mother-in-law,
3. Mohammad Javed S/o. Mohammad
Shafakat, aged about 39 yrs.,
Occ. Business, Brother-in-law.
4. Mohammad Ramiz s/o Mohammad
Shafakat, aged about 32 yrs.,
Occ. Business, Brother-in-law,
5. Shaikh Irfan s/o Shaikh Hanbib,
Aged about 39 yrs., Occ. Labourer,
R/o. Near Marathi School No.2,
Jawal Malkapur, Post Shendurjanghat,
Tq. Warud, Dist. Amravati, Borther-in-law,
6. Izhar Ahmad Khan s/o Wiquar Ahmad
Khan, aged about 39 yrs., Occ. Labourer,
R/o. Near Sanju Lala's House,
Qasadpura, Achalpur, Dist. Amravati,
Brother-in-Law.
7. Salam Parveen w/o. Shaikh Irfan,
Aged about 35 yrs., Occ. Labourer,
R/o. Near Marathi School No.2,
Jawal Malkapur, Post Shendurjanghat,
Tq. Warud, Dist. Amravati, Sister-in-law,
apl 813.21.odt
2
8. Asma Kausar w/o Izhar Ahamd Khan,
aged about 33 yrs., Occ. Labourer,
R/o. Near Sanju Lala's House, Qasadpura,
Achalpur, Dist. Amravati, Sister-in-law,
9. Shaheen Anjum @ Parveen w/o Abdul
@ Shaikh Razik, aged about 45 yrs.,
Occ. Housewife, R/o. Near Shahzad
Kirana Zamzam Dudh Dairy, Zam Zam
Colony, Amravati, sister-in-law,
10. Tabassum Jahan wd/o Syed Gulam,
aged about 42 yrs., Occ. Household,
R/o. Near Masjid Mukaspura, Morshi,
Tq. Morshi, Dist. Amravati, Husbands
Neighbor,
Applicant Nos. 1 to 4 are R/o. Ward No.
Mukaspura, Morshi, Nagpuri Gate,
Tq. Morshi, Dist. Amravati.
...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Police Station Officer,
Police Station, P.S. Nagpuri Gate, Amravati
City, Tq. & Dist. Amravati,
2. Rafiya Siddique Mujahid Hussain,
Aged about 22 yrs., Occ. Household,
R/o. C/o. Kasim Khan Driver, Memon
Colony, Nagpuri Gate, Walgaon Road,
Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati.
....NON-APPLICANTS.
apl 813.21.odt
3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A.B. Mirza, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. M.K. Pathan, APP for non-applicant no.1/State.
Ms. Payal Kaware, Advocate for non-applicant No.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND
MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI JJ..
DATE : 16.10.2024
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Heard.
2. By this application, the applicants are seeking to quash
charge-sheet (RCC No. 993/2024) arising out of Crime No.
303/2021 registered with Police Station Nagpuri Gate, Amravati
City, Tq. and Dist. Amravati, for the offence punishable under
Sections 498-A, 313 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage),
Act 2019.
3. The learned counsel for applicants would submit that out
of matrimonial discord, the entire family has been arraigned as
accused to harass the family. It is submitted that the allegation
levelled against the applicants who are relatives of husband are
apl 813.21.odt
general and vague. The First Information Report ("FIR") and the
statements recorded during the course of investigation do not specify
the act of each of the applicants and therefore, continuation of
prosecution amounts to abuse of the process of Court.
4. In support of said contention, reliance is placed on the
decision of the Supreme Court in cases of Kahkashan Kausar @
Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, 2022 0 Supreme
(SC) 117, Abhishek Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 0 Supreme
(SC) 813, Seenivasan Vs. The State by Inspector of Police & anr.
2019 0 Supreme (SC) 916 and Varala Bharath Kumar and another
Vs. State of Telangana and another, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 912 . On
the other hand, the application is resisted by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel appearing for
informant. They would submit that the informant has stated about
the unlawful monetary demand and consequential harassment. At
this preliminary stage, merits of the contention cannot be looked
into.
5. The principal accused i.e. husband is not before us. The
applicants are parents-in-law, brother-in-laws, sister-in-laws with
apl 813.21.odt
their husbands, distant relative Shaheen and one Tabassum Jahan.
It is alleged that the husband has affair with one Tabassum. The
examination of prima facie case against the relatives of husband and
stranger is for our scrutiny. The couple got married on 07.04.2019,
on which the informant lady started to reside with her husband, in-
laws and two brother-in-laws. After initial 3 to 4 months, she was
subjected to cruelty. In the month of October 2019, mother-in-law
and sister-in-law Asma insisted for abortion and by administering
something in the food, caused to abort the child.
6. It is informant's case that in the month of October 2019,
she learnt about the affair of her husband with one Tabassum. When
she questioned to her husband, she was beaten. The informant
stated the things to her mother-in-law and both sister-in-laws, but
they neglected and humiliated her. It is alleged that Shaheen a
distant relative used to visit their house and was instigating her
husband, on which she was subjected to cruelty. The informant was
humiliated and abused in filthy language by her parents-in-laws.
She stated that in the meeting held on 10 th October, 2022, all
applicants abused her. Some more meetings were held, in which all
apl 813.21.odt
of them raised monetary demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- and harassed for
to meet unlawful demand.
7. We have gone through the statement of informant recorded
by the Police on 08.06.2021 which is similar to her earlier version.
Undisputedly, the main allegation about harassment and beating are
against husband who is not before us. It is not in dispute that after
marriage, the informant was living with husband, parents-in-law and
two brothers-in-law. The rest of the applicants are residing
elsewhere. The FIR and the material collected during the course of
investigation does not disclose individual act of the brother-in-laws,
sister-in-laws or other relatives. So far as parents-in-law are
concerned, they are admittedly living under one roof and there are
statements about instigation by them. They used to humiliate and
harass her by abusing in filthy language. It is also stated that
parents-in-law used to raise monetary demand. Prima facie case
exists against them which needs to be examined during the trial.
8. As regards to other relatives are concerned, allegations are
omnibus in nature without specific details as to when and which of
the applicant has raised momentary demand. In case of Kahkashan
apl 813.21.odt
Kausar (supra), it has been expressed that false implication by way
of general omnibus allegations against relatives needs to be looked
seriously. In the case of Abhishek ( supra), it is ruled that permitting
criminal prosecution to go against the relatives without specific
allegation resultes into injustice. The allegations as regards to the
applicant Shaheen pertains to instigating informant's husband. The
said allegation is without specification. Admittedly, Shaheen is
residing elsewhere, her casual visit or some saying to informant's
husband are quiet insufficient to constitute the offence. As regards
to the applicant Tabassum is concerned, she is not relative of the
husband by blood, marriage or adoption. In the decision of the
Supreme Court in case of Vijeta Gajra Vs. State of NCT of Delhi,
2010 0 Supreme (SC) 548, it is specifically ruled that in order to
attract the provisions of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, one
has to be a "relative" of the husband by means of blood, marriage or
adoption. Since Tabassum is not the relative of husband, the
prosecution would not stand against her.
9. In view of above, even if the entire material is taken at
their face value and accepted in entirety against applicant Nos. 3 to
10, it does not prima facie constitute any offence against them and
apl 813.21.odt
therefore, continuation of trial against them would be abuse of the
process of the Court.
10. In view of above, application is partly allowed. We hereby
quash and set aside charge-sheet (RCC No. 993/2024) arising out of
Crime No. 303/2021 registered with Police Station Nagpuri Gate,
Amravati City, Tq. and Dist. Amravati for the offence punishable
under Sections 498-A, 313 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on
Marriage), Act 2019 as regards to applicant Nos. 3 to 10 only.
11. Application stands disposed of in above terms.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Gohane
Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 16/10/2024 17:15:31
