Allowed

Nusratullah Khan S/O Muzaffarullah Khan and Others v. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Frezarpura Police Station, Amravati and Another

Bombay HC21 Nov 2016APL/120/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge quashed an F.I.R. in a matrimonial dispute involving allegations of harassment and alleged fall from terrace. Court noted substantial progress in marital relationship and husband's inability to work due to FIR.

What did the court decide?

F.I.R. No.380/2015 registered by Frezarpura police station is quashed and set aside against the applicants and the husband.

Nusratullah Khan S/O Muzaffarullah Khan and Others Vs… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 apl120.16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.120/2016

¶4

Nusratullah Khan s/o Muzzaffarullah Khan and others ..Vs..

¶5

State of Maharashtra, through its Police Station officer, Frezarpura Police Station, Tq. and Distt. Amravati and another

¶6

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

¶8

Ms. Akshaya Kshirsagar, counsel for the applicant. Mr. M.K. Pathan, Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant No.1. Mr. R.D. Karode, counsel for non-applicant No.2.

¶9

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED : 21.11.2016.

¶10

The applicants who are mother, sisters and brother-in-law of Rahil Ahmad - the husband of nonapplicant No.2 have approached this Court praying for quashing and setting aside the F.I.R. registered by non-applicant No.1 vide Crime No.380/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 307, 325, 504, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶11

The said Rahil Ahmad was married to nonapplicant No.2 on 8.5.2011. It is the case of the applicants that the non-applicant No.2 had lodged a false complaint against applicants thereby alleging that after her marriage with Rahil Ahmed the applicants were harassing her for illegal demands. It was their case that

¶12

2 apl120.16

¶13

on account of refusal to meet the demands the applicants had thrown the non-applicant No.2 from the terrace of the house on 25^th August, 2015. The F.I.R. in question was registered on 11^th September, 2015.

¶14

It was the contention of the applicants that said fall was accidental and the husband of the non-applicant No.2 had taken up her for treatment immediately to Nagpur. It was further their case that in the statement of non-applicant No.2 recorded by police the history was given of an accidental fall.

¶15

Taking into consideration that the F.I.R. was an outcome of matrimonial dispute and further taking into consideration that said Rahil Ahmed and non-applicant No.2 were blessed with two children, out of them, elder living with father and the other one living with mother, we had counselled the parties in our chamber on 12^th August, 2016. After counselling the husband and wife had agreed to travel together at Amravati and to go together to bring their younger son at Ner and bring him back to their house at Amravati. Subsequently, the matter was kept on 19.9.2016. After hearing the parties we were of the view that there was substantial progress in their relationship. However, we adjourned the matter so as to enable them to have longer time for sorting out their differences.

¶16

Today the matter is called out. The

¶17

3 apl120.16

¶18

non-applicant No.2 states that there is a substantial progress in their relationship. She further states that on account of F.I.R. in question her husband is not getting job. Therefore, she has also requested for quashing and setting aside the F.I.R.

¶19

Taking into consideration all these aspects and since in our view the pendency of criminal proceedings would be a hurdle in peaceful and cordial relationship between the non-applicant No.2 and her husband we find that the present application deserves to be allowed. In that view of the matter, the F.I.R. No.380/2015 registered by Frezarpura police station is quashed and set aside against the applicants as well as the husband of non-applicant No.2 namely Shri Rahil Ahmed.

¶20

JUDGE JUDGE

¶21

Tambaskar .

Nusratullah Khan S/O Muzaffarullah Khan and Others v. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Frezarpura Police Station, Amravati and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nusratullah Khan S/O Muzaffarullah Khan and Others v. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Frezarpura Police Station, Amravati and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs the Custom Excise and Gold (Control)and Anr.

Shri. Ravindra Madhukar Jagtap, and Others Vs the State of Maha., through Secretary,Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept., Mumbai and Other

Smt. Mulibai Charkha Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Thr. Its President and Anr. Vs Dr. Leena Ramprasadji Chitlange and Ors.

Bahubali Majoor Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Thr. Its Secretary Shri Maroti Vithobaji Gadmade Vs State of Maharashtra Building and Communication Public Works Dept. Thr. Its Chief Secretary

Group of Employees of Mah.Antibiotics and Phar.Nagpu Vs the Appellate Authority for Industrial Finance and 6

Gajanan S/O Manikrao Darane and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Revenue and Forest Dept., Mantralaya Mumbai and Others