Bombay High Court
Ibrahim Vazir Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 23 January, 2025
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2025:BHC-AS:3303-DB
KVM
1/11
APL 832 OF 2024.odt
Digitally signed
by KANCHAN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
KANCHAN VINOD
VINOD MAYEKAR
MAYEKAR Date:
2025.01.23
18:39:08 +0530
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 832 OF 2024
Ibrahim Vazir Khan ..... Accused/Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..... Respondents
Mr. Ibrahim Vazir Khan, Applicant present in person.
Mr. J. P. Yagnik, Addl. G.P. for the State.
Mr. M. P. Mishra for the Respondent No.2.
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 16th JANUARY, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 23rd JANUARY, 2025
JUDGMENT ( PER - RAJESH S.PATIL, J.) :
-
Marriage is considered a journey where two different people
unite to share a life time of friendship and love.
1. In the present case, wife/Complainant has filed 498A
proceedings against the husband/Applicant herein, after 29 years of
KVM
APL 832 OF 2024.odt
marriage. The present Criminal Application has been filed under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the original
accused person (husband) against whom offence vide FIR No. 0556 of
2023 has been registered at Amboli Police Station, Mumbai at the
behest of Respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Sections
498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. It has been submitted by the Applicant that marriage
between Applicant and Respondent No.2 was solemnized on 11th
December, 1994, at Mumbai. There are two children born out of the
said wedlock viz. Saqlain born in the year 1997 and Sufiyan in the year
2000. After marriage on or about October 2000, the Applicant went to
Saudi Arabia for employment in LG Company. During the said period,
the Complainant was residing with her two sons in Mumbai.
3. The Applicant submitted that after getting a job in Saudi
Arabia as a Civil Engineer he worked there from the year 2000 to
2020. During the said period between 2002-2018, he purchased six
properties/flats in Mumbai which are registered in the name of his wife
KVM
APL 832 OF 2024.odt
i.e. Respondent No.2 herein. The said registration was done by mutual
understanding between the couple, i.e. the Applicant and Respondent
No.2, and that Respondent No.2 will transfer back the said properties
in the name of the Applicant as and when he demands. Further,
according to the Applicant, the entire consideration of the said
properties are paid from his various bank accounts. The bank
statement which is annexed as Exhibit-A to this Application shows the
said details.
4. The Applicant submitted that during the COVID period, as
he lost his job, in or about September 2020, he returned back to India
permanently. After his return to India, the couple had good relations
for some days, thereafter, the disputes arose between the couple due to
financial discrepancies. The Applicant states that he requested
Respondent No.2 to transfer back the said properties (six properties) in
his name to which she did not agree. Upon such dispute, the Applicant
called a joint family meeting on 18 th February, 2022 in which
Respondent No.2 agreed to transfer the said properties to the Applicant
and further demanded Rs.2 lacs in return.
KVM
APL 832 OF 2024.odt
5. The Applicant further states that the Applicant on the demand
of Respondent No.2, paid her Rs.2 lacs to avoid any litigation in Court.
But after receiving an amount of Rs.2 lacs, Respondent No.2 further
increased her demand of Rs.2 lacs per property which he denied.
Consequentially, Respondent No.2 filed domestic violence application
bearing No. 152/DV/2022 in the Court of Andheri Metropolitan
Magistrate.
6. According to the Applicant, on 22nd May, 2022 Respondent
No.2 declared herself as the owner of five properties and issued notices
to all tenants/licencees and asked them to transfer the monthly rent in
her bank account.
7. Being aggrieved by the conduct of Respondent No.2, the
Applicant herein has filed six civil suits against Respondent No.2 in the
City Civil Court at Dindoshi. Out of six civil suits, the Applicant was
succeeded in obtaining injunction in his favour in three civil suits.
KVM
APL 832 OF 2024.odt
8. As a result of these interim reliefs in favour of the Applicant
in three civil suits, Respondent No.2 filed FIR under Sections 498-A,
323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the Applicant on
18th August, 2023 at Amboli Police Station.
9. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and
the learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 strongly opposed the
Criminal Application and submitted that the perusal of the entire FIR
and charge-sheet would show that there is ample evidence against the
Applicant to convict him under the offence under Sections 498-A, 323,
504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that once
charge-sheet is filed, this Court should not entertain the present Writ
Petition. The statement recorded of the witnesses and the fact that has
come on record clearly shows that the offence is made out against the
Applicant. The Applicant/accused person needs to face trial and the
FIR and charge-sheet cannot be quashed, at this juncture. There is no
merit in the present Criminal Application. Enough evidence has been
produced to attract the provisions of Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506
of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the Criminal Application requires
KVM
APL 832 OF 2024.odt
to be dismissed.
10. We have heard both the parties and the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor and with their assistance, we have gone through the
documents on record.
11. Admittedly, the Applicant and the Complainant/Respondent
No.2 are married 29 years back. Before the subject FIR was filed on
18th August, 2023 on behest of the Complainant (wife), the
Complainant and the present Applicant had earlier filed Domestic
Violence proceedings and FIR respectively against each other. So also,
the Applicant has filed six Civil Suits pertaining to six different
properties in the City Civil Court at Mumbai. On 29 th April, 2023, the
City Civil Court granted interim reliefs in three suits, in favour of the
present Applicant thereby directing Respondent No.2 not to create any
kind of third party rights in the suit flats till the disposal of the suits. It
is not the case of the any of the parties that an Appeal has been filed
against the said interim orders passed by the City Civil Court.
KVM
APL 832 OF 2024.odt
12. On going through the FIR, it appears that the FIR has been
lodged on the basis of a complaint filed by the wife on 18 th August,
2023 i.e. after a period of 29 years of marriage, alleging therein that the
Applicant (husband) has been threatening the wife that all the six flats
which he had purchased from his income which are registered for
convenience in the name Respondent No.2 (wife), should be
transferred in the name of the Applicant (husband). He has also
threatened that he will marry for the second time. It is further alleged
that the Applicant (husband) is not allowing Respondent No.2 (wife) to
go out of the house and repeatedly taunts the Complainant. By filing 15
Civil Suits in the City Civil Court at Dindoshi, he has been harassing
the Complainant.
13. While filing the charge-sheet, the police has recorded the
statements of the two sons of the Complainant who have made
identical allegations which are similar in lines with that of the
Complainant (their mother). The said statements are part of the charge-
sheet. A photocopy of the charge-sheet was tendered in the Court while
the matter was argued. It is also pertinent to note that in the complaint,
KVM
APL 832 OF 2024.odt
no dates are mentioned when the alleged incidents took place. It is a
matter of record that as on date, the Applicant is dwelling in the flat at
A/1704, Reyhaan Terraces, Jogeshwari, Mumbai along with the
Complainant and their two grown up sons. Going through the entire
allegations as narrated in the FIR, we find that the offence punishable
under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code are
not made out.
14. In our view, the fact narrated in the complaint and the FIR,
does not prima facie disclose the commission of an offence by the
Applicant. The allegations against the Applicant are insignificant, on
the basis of which no prudent person could reach to a conclusion that
there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the Applicant/Accused.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision of Abhishek
vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083 , has held in
paragraph Nos. 12 and 16 as under:-
"12. The contours of the power to quash criminal
proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P.C. are well defined. In V.
Ravi Kumar v. State represented by Inspector of Police, District
Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu [(2019) 14 SCC 568], this
Court affirmed that where an accused seeks quashing of the FIR,
KVM
APL 832 OF 2024.odt
invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, it is wholly
impermissible for the High Court to enter into the factual arena
to adjudge the correctness of the allegations in the complaint. In
Neeharika Infrastructure (P). Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
[Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021, decided on 13.04.2021], a 3-
Judge Bench of this Court elaborately considered the scope and
extent of the power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. It was observed
that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly, with
circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, such standard not
being confused with the norm formulated in the context of the
death penalty. It was further observed that while examining the
FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot
embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made therein, but if the Court thinks
fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-
restraint imposed by law, and more particularly, the parameters
laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR
1960 SC 866) and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp
(1) SCC 335], the Court would have jurisdiction to quash the
FIR/complaint.
16. Of more recent origin is the decision of this Court in
Mahmood Ali vs. State of U.P.(Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of
2023, decided on 08.08.2023)on the legal principles applicable
apropos Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therein, it was observed that when
an accused comes before the High Court, invoking either the
inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR
or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground
that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or
instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then
in such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into
the FIR with care and a little more closely. It was further
observed that it will not be enough for the Court to look into the
averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or vexatious
proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other
attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case
over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and
circumspection, to try and read between the lines."
(Emphasis supplied)
KVM
APL 832 OF 2024.odt
16. The ratio laid down in Abhishek (supra) will squarely
apply to the present proceedings. In our view, the FIR or the complaint,
even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety
do not prima facie disclose the commission of any offence, and there is
no material to substantiate the allegations made therein. As per the
settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, an FIR can be
quashed if the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not
constitute any offence. The contents of the FIR, read in entirety, fail to
meet the basic ingredients of the offences alleged. Therefore, the
continuation of the criminal proceedings against the Applicant will be
abuse of the process of law and warrants interference by this Court
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
17. We find that there is no merit in the FIR lodged and the
charge-sheet filed to that effect as against the Applicant/Accused for
the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of the
Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the Criminal Application is allowed in
terms of prayer Clause (a), which reads as under :-
KVM
APL 832 OF 2024.odt
(a) That allow this application and to be quashed
and set aside the proceedings of said FIR-556/2023
and its Charge Sheet C.C.No-121/PW/2024 pending
in the 44th Magistrate Court of Andheri Mumbai.
[ RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ] [ RAVINDRA V. GHUGE , J. ]
