Partly allowed

Abdul Wahab S/O Abdul Rashid Maniyar and Other v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Oct 2016APPLN/1627/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against six applicants (parents, brothers, sisters) for alleged dowry harassment and cruelty due to vague FIR contents and lack of prima facie evidence, while dismissing the petition for the husband.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings bearing Regular Criminal Case No.43 of 2016 were quashed and set aside against Applicant Nos.2 to 7; application dismissed against Applicant No.1.

Abdul Wahab S/O Abdul Rashid Maniyar and Other Vs the… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

cra1627.16

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1627 OF 2016

¶6

1) Abdul Wahab s/o Abdul Rashid Maniyar, Age-30 years, Occu:Business,

¶7

2) Abdul Rashid s/o Abdulla Maniyar (Abdul Rashid s/o Katalu Maniyar), Age-45 years, Occu:Business,

¶8

3) Khurshidbee w/o Abdul Rashid Maniyar, Age-45 years, Occu:Household,

¶9

4) Wahed s/o Abdul Rashid Maniyar, Age-28 years, Occu:Business,

¶10

5) Abdul Siddique s/o Abdul Rashid Maniyar, Age-26 years, Occu:Business,

¶11

6) Aarjumand d/o Abdul Rashid Maniyar, Age-24 years, Occu:Household,

¶12

7) Saleha @ Munni w/o Sajed Ansari, Age-29 years, Occu:Household,

¶13

All R/o-Gulshanbaag, Wangi Road,
Parbhani, Tq. & Dist-Parbhani.

¶14

...APPLICANTS

¶15

 VERSUS

¶16

1) The State of Maharashtra,

¶17

cra1627.16

¶18

¶19

2) Zinat Fatema w/o Wahab Maniyar,
 Age-25 years, Occu:Household,
 R/o-Gulshanbag, Wangi Road,
 Parbhani, at present Phule Nagar,
 Majalgaon, Dist-Beed.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

...

¶22

 Mr.G.R. Syed Advocate for Applicants.
 Mr.D.R. Kale, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1.
 Mr.K.H. Surve Advocate h/f. Mr. Hemant Surve
 Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶23

...

¶24

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND

¶25

 SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

¶26

 DATE : 6TH OCTOBER, 2016

¶27

ORAL ORDER [PER SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] :

¶28

.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By
the consent of the learned counsel appearing for
the parties, heard finally.

¶29

2.The Applicants have prayed for quashing

¶30

of criminal proceedings bearing Regular Criminal

¶31

Case No.43 of 2016 instituted in the Court of

¶32

Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Majalgaon for
the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323,

¶33

cra1627.16

¶34

¶35

504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code
("I.P.C." in short).

¶36

3.Applicant No.1 is the husband, Applicant
Nos.2 and 3 are the parents, Applicant Nos.4 and 5
are the brothers while Applicant Nos.6 and 7 are
the sisters of Applicant No.1, who is the husband
of Respondent No.2 (informant).

¶37

4.At the outset, the learned counsel for

¶38

Applicant No.1 submits that he is not pressing the
application so far as Applicant No.1 is concerned.

¶39

5.The learned counsel for Applicant Nos.2
to 7 submits that the F.I.R. does not contain any

¶40

specific allegations against these Applicants.
There are vague and general allegations made

¶41

against them about having ill-treated Respondent
No.2. He states that the F.I.R. has been lodged

¶42

because Applicant No.1 filed Regular Civil Suit
No.305 of 2015 on 28th October 2015 for divorce.

¶43

cra1627.16

¶44

¶45

He submits that the F.I.R. is an outcome of after-
thought, which has been lodged after about four
months of the departure of the informant from the
house of Applicant No.1. He submits that
continuation of the criminal proceedings on the
basis of the said vague and general allegations
would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.
He, therefore, prays that the above numbered
criminal proceedings may be quashed and set aside
against Applicant Nos.2 to 7.

¶46

6.On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. for

¶47

Respondent No.1/State and the learned counsel for
Respondent No.2 submit that there are allegations
made against Applicant Nos.2 to 7 that they
tortured Respondent No.2 physically and mentally.
According to them, there are prima facie grounds
to proceed against these Applicants for the above
mentioned offences. Therefore, they pray that the
Application may be dismissed.

¶48

cra1627.16

¶49

¶50

7.The F.I.R. dated 1st February 2016 lodged
by Respondent No.2 contains that Applicant Nos.2
to 7 were asking her to bring Rupees Two Lakh from
her maternal home and on that count they used to
quarrel with her, hurl abuses against her and
insult her. It further contains that ultimately
they drove her out of their house in August 2015.
These allegations ex-facie are very vague and
general. No specific date of any particular
incident of torture has been given. There is
nothing in the F.I.R. to show as to which out of
Applicant Nos.2 to 7 did any particular offending

¶51

act against Respondent No.2. The contents of the
F.I.R. do not prima facie disclose the ingredients
of "cruelty" as defined under Section 498-A of the
I.P.C. The statements of the witnesses also
contain the same vague and general allegations
against Applicant Nos.2 to 7.

¶52

8.Apart from the contents of the F.I.R. and
statements of witnesses, it is obvious that

¶53

cra1627.16

¶54

¶55

Applicant No.1 filed Regular Civil Suit No.305 of
2015 for divorce against Respondent No.2 on 28th
October 2015 and thereafter the present F.I.R.
came to be lodged against the Applicants on 1st
February 2016. When it was the case of Respondent

¶56

that she was driven out of her matrimonial house
after being tortured by Applicant Nos.2 to 7 in
the month of August 2015, there was no reason for
her to wait until 1st February 2016 to lodge the

¶57

F.I.R. against them for the alleged offences.
There is absolutely no explanation given in the
F.I.R. for the delay in lodging it after the lapse

¶58

of about four months on her departure from her
matrimonial house.

¶59

9.In the above circumstances, we are of the

¶60

considered view that continuation of the criminal
proceedings against Applicant Nos.2 to 7 would be
nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It
would be a futile exercise to allow continuation
of such proceedings. In view of these facts and

¶61

cra1627.16

¶62

¶63

circumstances of the case, we are inclined to
quash and set aside the above numbered criminal
proceedings instituted against Applicant Nos.2
to 7 only. Hence the order:-

¶64

O R D E R

¶65

(I) The Application to the extent of
Applicant No.1 is dismissed.

¶66

(II) The Application to the extent of
Applicant Nos.2 to 7 is allowed and the
criminal proceedings bearing Regular
Criminal Case No.43 of 2016 pending in
the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Majalgaon are quashed and set
aside so far as Applicant Nos.2 to 7 are
concerned.

¶67

(III) The Rule is made absolute
accordingly.

¶68

cra1627.16

¶69

¶70

(IV) The Criminal Application stands

¶71

disposed of accordingly.

¶72

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶73

asb/OCT16

Abdul Wahab S/O Abdul Rashid Maniyar and Other v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Wahab S/O Abdul Rashid Maniyar and Other v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Swapnil S/O Nandkumar Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jaysing S/O Narayansing Girase Vs the State of Maharshtra

Syed Noor S/O Syed Burhan Vs Syed Minya S/O Syed Burhan and Other

Nitesh Baburao Pawar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ganesh Baban Ghorpade and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Suresh S/O. Shravan Tajane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.