Shaikh Osman Shaikh Nabi and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC23 Jan 2025APPLN/2863/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR; Section 498-A IPC; general and vague allegations insufficient; FIR must disclose cognizable offence and essential ingredients; particulars cannot be left to trial; over-implication of husband's relatives (brother-in-law and his wife); Criminal Application No.2863 of 2023; FIR No.226 of 2019, P.S. Kranti Chowk, Aurangabad; R.C.C. No.1632 of 2020, JMFC Aurangabad; Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench; decided 23.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application allowed; FIR No.226 of 2019 (Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC) along with the charge-sheet and R.C.C. No.1632 of 2020 pending before JMFC Aurangabad quashed qua applicants Shaikh Osman s/o Shaikh Nabi and Shaikh Naheed Begum w/o Shaikh Usman. ¶¶35

Shaikh Osman Shaikh Nabi and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No.226 of 2019 and the consequential criminal proceedings (charge-sheet / R.C.C. No.1632 of 2020) against the applicants, who are accused nos. 3 and 4 and family members of the informant's husband, ought to be quashed on the ground that the allegations against them are vague and lacking in material particulars. +1 more

¶¶25

Court's answer

The allegations against the applicants (accused nos. 3 and 4) are grossly inadequate to make out the essential ingredients of Section 498-A IPC: the tentative period, tentative number of incidents and particulars of the manner of harassment amounting to cruelty are completely absent from the FIR, so forcing the applicants to undergo trial would serve no fruitful purpose.

¶¶29

Ratio / Principle

A prosecution under Section 498-A IPC cannot be sustained on the basis of general and vague allegations; the FIR with its contents must itself disclose that the cognizable offence is committed and all the essential ingredients thereof must be mentioned therein.

¶¶31

Key takeaways

The applicants, being the husband's brother and his wife (family members of the estranged husband of non-applicant no.2/informant), were unnecessarily arrayed as accused; the case against them is one of over-implication, warranting quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings qua them.ratio¶¶31
As a general proposition, the Court accepted that particulars of alleged cruelty may be furnished during the course of trial while depositions are recorded; however, this could not cure an FIR whose contents disclose no essential ingredients of the offence.obiter¶¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench (Vibha Kankanwadi and Rohit W. Joshi, JJ.; judgment per Rohit W. Joshi, J.) allowed Criminal Application No.2863 of 2023 and quashed FIR No.226 of 2019 (Police Station Kranti Chowk, Aurangabad, dated 16.07.2019) under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, along with the charge-sheet and R.C.C. No.1632 of 2020 pending before the JMFC Aurangabad, qua applicants Shaikh Osman (husband's brother) and Shaikh Naheed Begum (his wife), accused nos. 3 and 4. Holding that a prosecution under Section 498-A IPC cannot rest on general and vague allegations, and that the FIR itself must disclose the cognizable offence and all its essential ingredients, the Court found the FIR silent on the tentative period, number of incidents and particulars of the alleged harassment, held the case against the relatives of the estranged husband to be one of over-implication, and declined the State's plea that particulars could be supplied at trial.

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:4233-DB

¶2

¶3

32.cri.apl.2863.2023.odt

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2863 OF 2023

¶6

Shaikh Osman s/o Shaikh Nabi, Age – 52 yrs, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.4-4-33, Near Shahanoor Hamvi Masjid Moti Karanja, Dist. Aurangabad.

¶7

Shaikh Naheed Begum w/o Shaikh Usman, Age – 43 yrs, Occ. Household, R/o H.No.4-4-33, Near Shahanoor Hamvi Masjid Moti Karanja, Dist. Aurangabad.

¶8

... APPLICANTS

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

The State of Maharashtra, through Police Inspector, Police Station Kranti Chowk, Dist Aurangabad.

¶11

Manisha w/o Shaikh Abrar, Age 35 yrs, Occ. Household, R/o 1. Near Bharat Press, Anguri Baugh, Dist. Aurangabad 2) Bakwal Nagar, Waluj, Aurangabad.

¶12

… NON-APPLICANTS.

¶13

_____________________________________________________________ Shri Shaikh Altamash Abdul L. Shaikh, Advocate for the applicants.

¶14

Smt. P.R. Bharaswadkar, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Non-applicant/State. Non-applicant no.2 is served.

¶15

¶16

32.cri.apl.2863.2023.odt

¶17

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 23.01.2025.

¶18

JUDGMENT (PER ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) :

¶19

Heard. ADMIT.

¶20

2 . The matter is taken up for final disposal by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

¶21

The applicants in the present matter are accused nos. 3 and 4 in the First Information Report (‘FIR’) No.226 of 2019 registered with the Police Station Kranti Chowk, Aurangabad City on 16.07.2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’). The applicant no.2 is the wife of applicant no.1. The non-applicant no.2 is the informant, who is the wife of brother of applicant no.1 namely Shaikh Abrar. This Shaikh Abrar is accused no.1 and his second wife Nilofar is accused no.2.

¶22

The gist of an allegation in the FIR is that the marriage of non-applicant no.2 was solemnized with accused no.1 somewhere in the year 2011. The couple is blessed with two children from the wedlock. The non-applicant no.2 claims that she was treated well in the initial period of around 3 years from the date of marriage. However,

¶23

¶24

32.cri.apl.2863.2023.odt thereafter, accused no.1 married accused no.2 from where the things started getting bad. She alleges that accused nos.1 and 2 used to ill treat her, abuse her and also beat her, exerting pressure for getting money from her parents for buying motorcycle. She claims that such incidents of cruelty had occurred repeatedly. As regards the present applicants, who are accused nos. 3 and 4, the allegations are that they had mentally and physically harassed her and often used to threaten her that they will forcibly evict her from the matrimonial home. Based on these allegations the non-applicant no.1 has registered FIR against the present applicants and husband of non-applicant no.2 and his second wife. The non-applicant no.1 has conducted investigation in the matter and has filed a charge-sheet. Pursuant to the said charge-sheet, a criminal case being Regular Criminal Case(‘R.C.C.’) No.1632 of 2020 is registered against all the accused persons, which is pending for adjudication before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Aurangabad.

¶25

Shri Shaikh Altamash Abdul L., learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the allegations against the applicants are absolutely vague and lacking in all material particulars. He states that the allegations are not sufficient to sustain prosecution against the applicants, and therefore, FIR should be quashed against them.

¶26

¶27

32.cri.apl.2863.2023.odt 6. As against this, the contention of Smt. P.R. Bharaswadkar,

¶28

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor (‘APP’) is that the allegations are sufficient to sustain prosecution at present and details of harassment and cruelty can be furnished during the course of trial in the witness box.

¶29

We have heard the rival submissions as aforesaid and perused the record of the case with able assistance of both the learned Counsel. Perusal of the FIR and other statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reveal that general and vague allegations are made against the applicants that they used to illtreat the non-applicant no.2 and had threatened to forcibly evict her from the matrimonial house, if the demand of money is not fulfilled. What is relevant is that the tentative period, tentative number of such incidents and particulars with respect to manner of harassment amounting to cruelty are completely absent in the FIR. It is now, well settled by the catena of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as also this Court that, the prosecution under Section 498-A of the IPC cannot be sustained on the basis of general and vague allegations. We find that the allegations levelled in the FIR are grossly inadequate to make out essential ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC against the present applicants. We are unable to accept the

¶30

¶31

32.cri.apl.2863.2023.odt contention of the learned APP that particulars with respect alleged cruelty can be furnished during the course of trial in the present case since the allegations in the FIR are grossly inadequate to make out a case of cognizable offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC. As a general proposition, we may accept the contention that particulars can be given during the course of trial while depositions are recorded. However, there cannot be any quarrel about the proposition that the FIR with its contents must disclose that the cognizable offence is committed and all the essential ingredients thereof must be mentioned. We find the allegations in FIR grossly inadequate, and therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served for forcing the applicants to undergo the turmoil of facing a criminal trial. The present applicant no.1, who is the brother of the husband of non-applicant no.2 as also the applicant no.2, who is the wife of applicant no.1 are unnecessarily arrayed as an accused. The case against them is one of over-implication, since they are family members of estranged husband of non-applicant no.2/informant. We, therefore, inclined to allow the present application by quashing the FIR and criminal proceedings against the present applicants. Hence, we pass the following order :

¶32

(a) The Criminal Application is allowed.

¶33

¶34

32.cri.apl.2863.2023.odt

¶35

(b) The First Information Report No.226 of 2019 registered with the Police Station Kranti Chowk, Aurangabad City on 16.07.2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with Charge-sheet bearing R.C.C. No.1632 of 2020 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Aurangabad are hereby quashed against the present applicants i.e. 1. Shaikh Osman s/o Shaikh Nabi and 2. Shaikh Naheed Begum w/o Shaikh Usman.

¶36

The Criminal Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶37

(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)

¶38

(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)

¶39

Trupti

Shaikh Osman Shaikh Nabi and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Osman Shaikh Nabi and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarswati W/O Narayan Waghmode and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Gaurav Rajabhau Kuchekar Vs the District Magistrate and Others

Tushar Gautam Kanade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sonal Balwant Londhe and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Dinesh Tulshiram Pawar and Others. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Maroti Subhash Telange and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another