Quashed

Mubeen Ahmed Gaffar Khan and Another v. the State of Mah. Thr. Pso Frezerpura and Another

Bombay HC17 Aug 2021APL/220/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal application challenged the registration of an F.I.R. alleging offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Muslim Women Protection Act against an applicant and his father-in-law. The court held the allegations were vague and no specific instances implicated the applicants. Following Supreme Court precedent, the court quashed the FIR as continuing proceedings would constitute

What did the court decide?

The First Information Report No.485/2020 is quashed and set aside against the applicants.

Mubeen Ahmed Gaffar Khan and Another Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 Cri.APL No.220.21-J.odt

¶2

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

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 220 OF 2021

¶4

Mubeen Ahmed Gaffar Khan, Aged 60 years, Occupation : Retired, R/o. Chaprasipura, Camp, Amravati, Tq. Distt. Amravati.

¶5

Hajra Bano Abdul Gaffar, Age 66 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. C/o. Sajid Khan, Chaprasipura, Camp, Amravati, Distt. Amravati. .….. APPLICANTS

¶6

... VERSUS ...

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, Through P. S. O. Frezerpura, Amravati.

¶8

Farheen Kausar W/o. Wasim Khan, Age : 27 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. C/o. Sonu Quazi Fahimuddin Quazi, Pirbayzit Sawmill, Ahead of Ayema Colony, Ashti, Tq. Ashti, District – Wardha. ..….. NON-APPLICANTS

¶9

Shri A. A. Syed, Advocate for the Applicants.

¶10

Shri S. M. Ghodeswar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Non-applicant No.1/State.

¶11

Shri Kartik Rao, Advocate for the Non-applicant No.2.

¶12

CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE AND AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 17.08.2021.

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)

¶15

Heard.

¶16

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶17

2 Cri.APL No.220.21-J.odt

¶18

By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant No.1 who is father-in-law and the applicant No.2 who is not related to the non-applicant No.2 are challenging registration of the First Information Report No.485/2020 filed against them with the non-applicant No.1Police Station for the offences under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.

¶19

The First Information Report came to be registered against the husband of the non-applicant No. 2 and the applicants with the allegations that the husband of the non-applicant No.2 assaulted the non-applicant No.2 on 25.03.2020. In the First Information Report there is vague allegations that applicants have physically and mentally harassed the non-applicant No.2.

¶20

The applicants have therefore, challenged registration of the First Information Report by way of filing the present application.

¶21

This Court on 08.02.2021, issued notice to the nonapplicants. The non-applicant No.1 – Investigating Agency has filed reply stating that the Investigating Officer has recorded statements of various witnesses, which prima facie depicts the role

¶22

3 Cri.APL No.220.21-J.odt

¶23

played by the applicants in connivance with the accused No.1 in commission of the offences alleged against the applicants. The non-applicant No.2 has also filed reply stating that the allegations in the First Information Report are sufficient to constitute the offences alleged against the applicants.

¶24

We have carefully considered the allegations made in the First Information Report. On careful consideration of the First Information Report, we are satisfied that the applicant No.1 is father-in-law of the non-applicant No.2. The applicant No.2 is not related to the non-applicant No.2. The allegations made in the First Information Report against the applicants are vague in nature. There are no specific instances of involvement of applicants set out in the First Information Report.

¶25

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Subba Rao and Ors. Vs. State of Telangana reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452 observed that relatives of husband should not be roped in on the basis of vague allegations unless specific instances of their involvement are set out in the First Information Report.

¶26

In absence of specific allegations and specific instances, the applicants could not have been roped in by the non-applicant No.2. We are, therefore, satisfied that continuation of the

¶27

4 Cri.APL No.220.21-J.odt

¶28

proceedings against the applicants would amount to abuse of process of Court.

¶29

We therefore, pass the following order :

¶30

The First Information Report No.485/2020 registered with the non-applicant No.1 - Police Station for the offences under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 is quashed and set aside against the applicants.

¶31

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

¶32

JUDGE JUDGE

¶33

RGurnule

Mubeen Ahmed Gaffar Khan and Another v. the State of Mah. Thr. Pso Frezerpura and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mubeen Ahmed Gaffar Khan and Another v. the State of Mah. Thr. Pso Frezerpura and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumit S/O Nana Tarvare Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Hinganghat Dist.Wardha and Another

Ramdas S/O Kawaduji Kuranjekar Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso Ps Bhandara Police Station, Dist. Bhandara and Another

Dinesh S/O Ashokrao Athawale Vs State of Mah. Thr. S.P. Central Jail Amravati and Another

Gopal S/O. Janrao Sarap (in Jail) Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer Police Station Patur Dist. Akola

Dalaram Kodaram Chimpa and 8 Others (in Jail) Vs State of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Ps Gittikhadan, Nagpur City, Distnagpur

Nilam W/O Nitin Manthakar Vs State of Mah. Thr. Principal Home Secretary Govt. of Mah. Mantralaya Mumbai and 4 Others