Bombay High Court
Saeed Aslam Kureshi And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 9 January, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:1745-DB
(1)
appln.3113-2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3113 OF 2023
1. Saeed Aslam Kureshi
Age : 33 yrs, Occupation : Service
2. Aslam Dilawar Kureshi,
Age : 65 yrs. Occu : Business
3. Rizwana Aslam Kureshi, age: 57 yrs,
Occu: Housewife
4. Anis Aslam Kuresh, Age : 32 yrs,
Occ: Service
Applicant Nos.1 to 4 R/o 300, Ramacha Got,
Khari Vihir, Mangalwar Peth, Satara
5. Shabana Adam Palkar, age 58 yrs,
Occu. Housewife,
R/o Shaniwar Peth, Satara
Taluka & Dist. Satara
6. Shahazadi Junaid Shaikh, age 35 yrs,
Occu. Housewife R/o At Post Khed,
Taluka & District Ratnagiri ...Applicants
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector, Loni Police Station
2. Munjarin Saeed Kureshi, age 29 Years,
Occ. Self-employed, R/o C/o Faruk
Haji Abbas Ghone, Pathare Bk., Taluka
Rahata, District Ahmednagar .. Respondents
....
Mr. Joslyn A. Menezes h/f. Mr. P. S. Paranjape for Applicants.
Mr. N. R. Dayama, A.P.P. for Respondent/State.
Mr. V. H. Dighe, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
....
(2)
appln.3113-2023.odt
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 9th JANUARY, 2025
JUDGMENT (Per Rohit W. Joshi, J.):
-
1. The present application is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging FIR No.0132 of 2023
registered with Loni Police Station, District Ahmednagar on
04.03.2023 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w. Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The informant is respondent No.2. She is related to the
applicants as under:-
Applicant No.1: Husband
Applicant No.2 : Father-in-law
Applicant No.3 : Mother-in-law
Applicant No.4 : Brother-in-law
Applicant Nos.5 : Sister of mother-in-law
Applicant No.6 : Sister-in-law
3. The marriage of respondent No.2 with applicant No.1 was
solemnized on 23.04.2018. The couple is blessed with a child, namely,
Umar, who was born on 19.11.2019. Respondent No.2 is residing at
her parental house since 13.08.2022.
appln.3113-2023.odt
4. Prior to lodging of the FIR impugned in the present
proceeding it will be profitable to refer to two other counter FIRs
lodged by applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 each other on
28.07.2022 in relation to an incident that had occurred on
27.07.2022. The FIR lodged by applicant No.1 against respondent
No.2 is registered as Crime No.251 of 2022 and the counter FIR
lodged by respondent No.2 against applicant No.1 is registered as
Crime No.253 of 2022. Both these offences are for the offences
punishable under Section 326 of the IPC. On 27.07.2022 at about 4
a.m. a quarrel had ensued between applicant No.1 and respondent
No.2. Both of them have suffered stab injuries with a knife. Both
parties have their own version as is mentioned in their respective FIRs.
Applicant No.1 claims that respondent No.2 inflicted a stab wound
under his belly while he was asleep and thereafter she herself inflicted
a stab wound on her neck. Whereas the version of respondent No.2 is
that applicant No.1 tried to inflict stab wound on her neck and while
she was acting in self defence a stab wound was inflicted on his
stomach during the fight.
5. In this backdrop, after a period of around 15 days, i.e., on
13.08.2022 respondent No.2 left her matrimonial home and since then
she is residing at her parental house. The impugned FIR is lodged on
appln.3113-2023.odt
04.03.2023. The allegations in the FIR impugned in the present
proceeding are that applicant No.1 used to return home in late hours
at night and used to frequently talk to another lady on mobile phone
and on being questioned about the same he used to initiate quarrels
with respondent No.2 on some or the other pretext. Respondent No.2
has claimed that her parents and persons, who had acted as
mediators in fixing their marriage, also intervened in order to explain
applicant No.1 and his family members to behave properly with
respondent No.2 and to treat her well. Respondent No.2 claims that
even thereafter, applicant No.1 continued with the harassment and ill-
treatment. She claims that acts of beating continued thereafter. As
regards the other applicants, the allegations in the FIR are that after
the marriage of applicant No.4, i.e., brother-in-law of respondent
No.2, applicant Nos.2 to 6 started ill-treating respondent No.2. She
states that the applicants used to say that her parents are beggars.
They did not offer appropriate gifts and presents to the in-laws at the
time of marriage and also did not give 25 tolas of gold towards dowry.
She alleges that applicant No.2, i.e., father-in-law used to often ask
her to leave house so, that he could arrange another marriage for his
son, i.e., applicant No.1.
6. Before we proceed to deal with the merits of the matter it
will be pertinent to mention that while learned Advocate for the
appln.3113-2023.odt
applicants Mr. Joslyn A. Menezes advanced his submissions, we had
expressed disinclination to allow the application qua applicant No.1.
Learned Advocate for the applicants made a motion to withdraw the
application on behalf of applicant No.1 and sought permission to
proceed with merits of the matter for the other applicants. We allowed
the oral motion and accordingly, the application stands disposed of as
withdrawn with respect to applicant No.1.
7. As regards applicant Nos.2 to 6, the contention of the
learned Advocate is that the grievance of respondent No.2 is against
her husband. He has pointed out from the FIR that there was always
marital discord between applicant No.1 and respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 also doubted that applicant No.1 had some extra
marital affair and therefore used to continuously talk to some other
lady on his mobile. The allegations of beating and ill-treatment are
also levelled principally against applicant No.1. He submits that the
marital discord took an ugly turn on 27.07.2022 when the couple
attacked each other with knife and thereafter, lodged rival complaints
on 28.07.2022. It is a consequence of this that respondent No.2-wife
left the matrimonial house and started residing at her parental house
on 13.08.2022 and thereafter lodged the FIR on 04.03.2023.He
submits that intention to implicate all the family members of the
estranged husband is writ large on the face of the FIR itself.
appln.3113-2023.odt
8. Per contra Shri. N. R. Dayama, learned A.P.P. appearing for
respondent No.1-State and Mr. V. H. Dighe, learned Advocate for
respondent No.2 contend that although principal allegations are
against applicant No.1-husband, allegations of ill-treatment and
demand for dowry are also levelled against the other applicants. They
submit that the FIR should therefore not be quashed against other
applicants as well since specific allegations have been made.
9. We have heard the respective submission as aforesaid and
also perused the records with able assistance of Advocates appearing
in the matter. We find substance in the contention of learned counsel
for the applicants that the FIR is lodged against applicant Nos.2 to 6
with an intention to implicate all the family members of the estranged
husband in a criminal offence. Over implication is apparent on the
face of the FIR. The FIR contains definite allegations against applicant
No.1 alone, however, without providing any particulars general
omnibus allegations which are far too vague have been levelled
against applicant Nos.2 to 6. These allegations even if taken to be
true and correct, on their face value are insufficient to make out
essential ingredients of 498-A of the IPC. It will be unjust and unfair to
force applicant Nos.2 to 6 to face criminal prosecution on the basis of
such allegations.
10. We are of the considered opinion that the contents of FIR
appln.3113-2023.odt
need to be viewed in the peculiar backdrop of facts of the present case
where the fight between husband and wife had reached to the level of
inflicting wounds to each other by means of a knife resulting in
counter FIRs. It is in the peculiar facts of the case, we would like to
follow the guidelines in looking at a FIR that have been laid by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mamidi Anil Kumar
Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2024)
SCC Online 127. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in cases
where general and omnibus allegations are leveled against family
members in a case under Section 498-A of IPC, the FIR should be
quashed in as much as such allegations do not constitute essential
elements of the said offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had also
taken a note of rise in frivolous and vexatious cases being filed against
all the family members and near relatives of the husband. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has expressed that when a complaint is lodged out of
vengeance it is not enough to look into the FIR alone and all other
attending circumstances must also be looked into. The material and
should be viewed with circumspection and contents of FIR must be
interpreted by reading between the lines.
11. We have dealt with the matter guided by the aforesaid
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We find that although
respondent No.2 may have a case against applicant No.1 she has failed
appln.3113-2023.odt
to make out any case for continuing prosecution against applicant
Nos.2 to 6. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the FIR
and resultant criminal prosecution deserves to be quashed against
applicant Nos.2 to 6. Hence, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The criminal application is dismissed with respect to
applicant No.1-Saeed Aslam Kureshi
(ii) The FIR No.0132 of 2023 registered with Loni Police
Station, District, Ahmednagar on 04.03.2023 under Sections
498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC and the
Chargesheet bearing No.85 of 2023 dated 27.09.2023 for
the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506,
34 and further proceedings thereto being Regular Criminal
Case No.291 of 2023 pending on the file of learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Ahmednagar are hereby quashed
against applicant No.2 - Aslam Dilawar Kureshi, applicant
No.3 - Rizwana Aslam Kureshi, applicant No.4 - Anis Aslam
Kureshi, applicant No.5 - Shabana Adam Palkar, applicant
No.6 - Shahazadi Junaid Shaikh.
(ROHIT .W. JOSHI) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI )
JUDGE JUDGE
A.G.Narwade
