Bombay High Court
Mrs Shiba W/O Adil Patel vs State Of Mah., Thr. Police Station ... on 12 February, 2025
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2025:BHC-NAG:1681-DB
1 crwp.910.19-J.odt
N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 910 OF 2019
Mrs. Shiba w/o. Adil Patel,
Age about 25 yrs., Occ. : Household,
R/o. Medical Square, Nagpur. ... PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station, Kotwali, Nagpur.
2. Mrs. Nilofar w/o. Rahil Patel,
Aged about 31 Years, Occ. : Household,
R/o. Bhutiya Darwaja, Near Tehsildar Masjid,
Mahal, Nagpur.
New Address - C/o. Salma Ibrahim Shaikh,
Plot No.844, Near N.I.T. Garden,
Ashirwad Nagar, Nagpur.
[Amended as per Court's order dated
... RESPONDENTS
22.01.2020].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M. A. Qureshi, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. M. Ghodeswar, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1/State.
Mr. P. K. Bezalwar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND
MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 12.02.2025
JUDGMENT (PER : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.):
-
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing of the First
Information Report No.275/2018 for the offences punishable under Section
2 crwp.910.19-J.odt
498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The respondent No.2, who is the sister-in-law of the petitioner
has lodged the complaint against all the family members of her husband
and the crime is registered.
4. The marriage of the respondent No.2 with Rahil Patel, who is
the brother of the petitioner was performed on 20.05.2015. On 27.06.2018,
the respondent No.2 left the matrimonial house and lodged the complaint
against the family members. The complainant has made general allegations
against the petitioner. She has stated that the petitioner has also harassed
her for demand of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lakhs) and also instigated her
husband to treat her with cruelty.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the
marriage of the petitioner was performed after four days of the marriage of
the respondent No.2 i.e. on 24.05.2015. Thereafter, she started staying at
her matrimonial house. She has no concern with the allegations made by
the petitioner against the other family members as she was staying with her
husband at her matrimonial house. The Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) was executed between the respondent No.2 and her husband. In
the M.O.U., she has mentioned that she will not lodge any false complaint
against the petitioner. As there are no specific allegations against the
3 crwp.910.19-J.odt
petitioner and as she is falsely implicated in this case, she prayed to quash
the First Information Report against her.
6. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 opposed the
petition stating that all the family members treated her with cruelty.
Though the respondent No.2 tried to settle the matter, the husband of the
respondent No.2 did not take her back. The matter is not settled. Hence,
prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. Heard both the learned Counsel.
8. On perusal of the First Information Report, it appears that the
complainant has made the allegations against the entire family members
including the maternal uncle of the husband of the complainant. It is an
admitted position that the petitioner, who is the sister-in-law is staying with
her in-laws. Her marriage was performed after the marriage of respondent
No.2. The M.O.U. is admitted by the respondent No.2, in which she has
mentioned that she will not lodge any false and frivolous complaint against
the petitioner, who is not staying with them.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the reported case of Kahkashan
Kausar @ Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others [2022 2 SCC
(Cri) 684] has expressed concern about implicating all the family members
in the domestic dispute. Particularly, it is observed that on the basis of the
vague and general allegations, the family members shall not be put to an
4 crwp.910.19-J.odt
ordeal. In the light of the said proposition, we have examined available
material. It reveals that besides vague and general allegations, nothing
specific has been made out against all applicants. These allegations are
mainly against the husband, who is not before us. In above peculiar facts,
continuation of the prosecution against the relatives of the husband would
be abuse of the process of the Court.
10. In view of above, the application is allowed.
We hereby quash and set aside the First Information Report
No.275/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504
and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act against the petitioner only.
11. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
RGurnule
Signed by: Mrs. R.M. MANDADE
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 20/02/2025 18:23:44
