Partly allowed

Imran S/O. Abdul Karim Tamboli and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Jun 2018APPLN/567/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad applied its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR registered against the husband and his relatives. It held that allegations against the relatives were vague and lacked specific facts attracting Section 498-A IPC. The application for the husband was disposed of as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

The FIR bearing Crime No. 213/2017 was quashed against Applicants Nos. 2 to 9. The application by Applicant No. 1 was disposed of as withdrawn.

Imran S/O. Abdul Karim Tamboli and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

Apln567-18.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 567 OF 2018

¶4

1. Imran s/o Abdul Karim Tamboli ... Applicants Age 34 years, Occu: Teacher (Orig.Accused) R/o c/o Ashok Maruti Gaikwad, At Tambi Post Rohat Tq. & Dist. Satara

¶5

2. Masumbi w/o Abdul Karim Tamboli Age 75 years, Occu: Nil R/o Vikas Nagar, Mohammdiya Colony, Latur.

¶6

3. Salim s/o Abdul Karim Tamboli Age 51 years, Occu: Labour

¶7

4. Hasina w/o Salim Shaikh Age 47 years, Occu: Household

¶8

5. Akhil s/o Abdul Karim Tamboli Age 50 years, Occu: Labour

¶9

6. Shaijadi w/o Akhil Tamoli, Age 51 years, Occu: Household Applicant 3 to 6 R/o Room No. 888, 2/2, Akbar Suleman Compound, SMD Road, near Shakh Misri Dargah, Antop Hill, Wadala, Mumbai 400 037

¶10

7. Nasim w/o Munir Shaikh Age 44 years, Occu: Household

¶11

8. Munir s/o Usman Shaikh Age 54 years, Occu: Business Applicant No.7 and 8 R/o Khirni Mala, Rasul Pura, Osmanabad

¶12

9. Parveen w/o Mohammed Ali Siddiqui

¶13

1/6

¶14

Apln567-18.odt

¶15

Age 42 years, Occu: Household
R/o Near Anjuman Islamik High
School, M.K. Residency, E Wing,
404, CST Road, Kurla West,
Mumbai 400 070

¶16

VERSUS

¶17

1. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Incharge Udrig, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur

¶18

2.Nishat Anjum w/o Imran ...Respondents
Tamboli,
Age 31 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Municipal Corporation thane
Primary School No.106, Simla
Park, Mumbra, Mumbai.

¶19

Mr. Fayaz K. Patel, Advocate for the applicants
Mr. S. J. Salgare, APP for the respondent State.
Mr. I. D. Maniyar, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶20

CORAM:T. V. NALAWADE AND
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE::20th June, 2018

¶21

JUDGMENT ( Per K. L. Wadane,J.):

¶22

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the

¶23

consent of the parties, the application is taken up for
final hearing.

¶24

2. The application is filed under section 482 of

¶25

the Code of Criminal Procedure for relief of quashing
of first information report bearing Crime No. 213/2017
registered with Police Station Udgir, Dist. Latur for
the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504,

¶26

2/6

¶27

Apln567-18.odt

¶28

506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶29

3. Respondent No.2/original complainant lodged

¶30

first information report against the present applicants
alleging that she got married with applicant No.1
Imran. Gold ornaments of 9 tolas and household
articles were given to her by her parents at the time
of marriage. After marriage she was treated well for

¶31

one year, however, thereafter the applicants started
ill-treating her. The applicants/accused have asked
the complainant to bring Rs. 5 lakhs from her parents

¶32

for purchasing agricultural land and in pursuance to
the demand, applicants threatened her that if she fails

¶33

to bring the money, then applicant No.1 will not
cohabit with her. Applicants 2 to 9 used to harass the
complainant by going Mumbai and were asking account of
her salary. It is also alleged that prior to five
month of lodging FIR she was residing with her parents

¶34

at Udgir. The applicants accused came there and
threatened her parents that if they fail to give Rs.5
lakh to the applicants then they will divorce the
complainant. With these allegations, offence came to

¶35

be registered against the applicants accused for the
offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506

¶36

3/6

¶37

read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶38

4. Heard Mr. Fayaz K. Patel, learned counsel for

¶39

the applicants, Mr. S. J. Salgare, learned APP for the
respondent State and Mr. I. D. Maniyar, learned counsel
for respondent No.2 learned counsel for respondent
No.2.

¶40

5. Learned APP submits that there is some

¶41

misconception due to which the charge- sheet is not
filed though investigation is completed. By order
dated 12th March, 2018, this has not prevented the
investigating agency from filing charge-sheet and
indirectly only the relief of anticipatory bail was
granted.

¶42

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted

¶43

that he is not pressing the application for applicant
No.1-Imran, husband of the complainant and he wants to
withdraw the same.

¶44

7. On perusal of the first information report, it
appears that since beginning complainant is residing
and serving at teacher at Mumbra. Her husband Applicant
No.1 is serving at Satara and he was coming to Mumbai
once in a week on holidays. Applicant Nos. 2 to 9 are

¶45

4/6

¶46

Apln567-18.odt

¶47

relatives of husband of the complainant such as
mother, brother, sister-in-law, married sisters and
their husbands etc. They are all residing separately at
their receptive houses, away from the place, where the
complainant is residing.

¶48

8. On perusal of the first information report, it
appears that there is no material particular quoting
any specific incident of visit or about ill-treatment
or harassment against applicant Nos. 2 to 9 so as to
attract ingredients of section 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code. Allegations against applicant Nos. 2 to 9
in the first information report are vague and general
in nature. No specific act or overt-act is attributed
to them. Secondly, even if the allegations in the
first information report are taken at its face value,
there is no specific instance or material particular
which would strengthen the allegation of the
complainant that there was harassment or ill-treatment
at the hands of applicant Nos. 2 to 9 as contemplated
under the provisions of Section 498-A I.P.C. so as to
even make out a prima facie case against them.

¶49

9. In view of the above, we find considerable force

¶50

in the argument of Mr. Shaikh, learned counsel for

¶51

5/6

¶52

Apln567-18.odt

¶53

quashing the criminal proceedings against applicant

¶54

Nos. 2 to 9. Hence following order:

¶55

O R D E R

¶56

i. Application of applicant Nos. 2 Mausambi, 3) Salim, 4) Hasina 5) Akhil, 6) Shaijadi, 7) Nasim, 8) Munir and 9) Parveen is hereby allowed.

¶57

ii. First information report bearing Crime No. 213/2017 registered with Udgir Police Station, Dist. Latur is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of Applicant Nos. 2 to 9.

¶58

iii. Application of Applicant No. 1 Imran is disposed of as withdrawn. Interim relief in respect of applicant No.1 is vacated.

¶59

iv. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.

¶60

(K. L. WADANE, J.) (T. V. NALAWADE, J.)

¶61

JPC

¶62

6/6

Imran S/O. Abdul Karim Tamboli and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran S/O. Abdul Karim Tamboli and Others 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

Tulshiram Darmaji Ubale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shantabai Balasaheb Kshetre and Ohters Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Maya D/O. Bansi Gaisamudre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Savita W/O. Pintu Salunke and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sushantbabu Gopalkisan Maganti and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dr Sadatkhan Yaqubali Khan Vs the State of Maharahtra and Anr.