Allowed¶56

Tabassum Imtiyaz Shah v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Nov 2025WP/135/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of dowry/matrimonial-dispute prosecution under Ss.498A, 313, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC (FIR No.721/2023; Charge-sheet No. 120 of 2024; RCC No.478/2024, Pandharpur) after amicable settlement and separation; complainant's voluntary statement and consent affidavit (24.11.2025); abuse of process; futile prosecution; Bombay High Court Kolhapur Circuit Bench; writ petitions allowed 24.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed; Charge-sheet No. 120 of 2024 (RCC No.478 of 2024 arising out of FIR No.721/2023) quashed and set aside; proceedings in RCC No.478 of 2024 dropped; petitions disposed of accordingly. ¶56

Tabassum Imtiyaz Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the prosecution of the petitioners in RCC No.478 of 2024 (arising out of FIR No.721/2023 under Sections 498A, 313, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC, stemming from a matrimonial dispute) should be quashed, given the amicable separation of the complainant and the petitioners and the complainant's recorded consent.

¶49

Court's answer

Continuance of the prosecution arising out of the matrimonial dispute would amount to abuse of the process of law, the matrimonial controversy having already come to an end and the husband and wife having separated and living independent lives.

¶49

Ratio / Principle

If allowed to continue, the proceedings would harm the future of the parties and recurrently confront and remind them of the bitter relationship; the prosecution would be a futile exercise with no object of any just reason.

¶50

Key takeaways

Charge-sheet No. 120 of 2024, registered as RCC No.478 of 2024 arising out of FIR No.721/2023 (Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506, 313 read with 34 IPC, Pandharpur City Police Station), is quashed and set aside.ratio¶57
The proceedings in RCC No.478 of 2024 pending in the Court of the Learned 3rd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pandharpur, also stand dropped.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Circuit Bench at Kolhapur), Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction — five connected writ petitions (lead: Writ Petition No. 4607 of 2025) filed by the ex-husband and his relatives (original Accused Nos.1 to 4 and others) sought quashing of the prosecution arising out of FIR No.721/2023 dated 26.11.2023 of Pandharpur City Police Station under Sections 498A, 313, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC, pursued via Charge-sheet No. 120 of 2024 (RCC No.478 of 2024) before the 3rd JMFC, Pandharpur. The complainant (Respondent No.2), present in Court and assisted by counsel, voluntarily declared that she had amicably severed ties with her ex-husband and tendered an affidavit notarized on 24.11.2025 consenting to settlement and quashing. Holding that continuance of the matrimonial-dispute prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law and a futile exercise, the Court (judgment per Ajit B. Kadethankar, J., sitting with M. S. Karnik, J.) allowed the petitions, quashed the charge-sheet and dropped the RCC proceedings. Decided 24.11.2025; corrected judgment as per speaking-to-minutes dated 8th December 2025.

¶1

J-WP-4607-2025-SM.doc

¶2

(Corrected Judgment as per speaking to minutes of order dated 8^th December 2025)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 4607 OF 2025

¶6

1. Sayyed Huzaiffa Faheem Shah	]
(Husband)	]
Age:- 33 years, Occ.: Service	]
2. Sayyed Naseeruddin Faheem	]
Shah (Brother-in-law)	]
Age:- 29 years, Occu:- Service	]
3. Sayyed Faheem Rashid Shah	]
(Father-in-law)	]
Age:- 71 years, Occu:- Retired	]
4. Shaheen Faheem Shah	]
(Mother-in-law)	]
Age:-62 years, Occu: Housewife All are residing at:- NC-3/202,	] ]
Mamta So. Ajmera Complex,	]
Prem Park, Pimpri, Dist:- Pune	]
- 412303.	]	…Petitioners (Ori. Acc. No.1 to 4)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra	]
Through Pandharpur City	]
Police Station, Dist:- Solapur.	]	...Respondent No.1
2. Uzma Huzaifa Shah	]
(Ori. Complainant)	]
Age:- 30 years, Occu:- Doctor	]
R/at:-754, Govindpur,	]
Dist:- Solapur	]	...Ori/Complainant
		Respondent No.2

¶7

1 of 8

¶8

ZIP

¶9

J-WP-4607-2025-SM.doc

¶10

WITH

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO. 135 OF 2025

¶12

1. Tabassum Imtiyaz Shah	]
(Cousin-mother-in-law)	]
Age 52 years, Occ.:House	]
wife, R/at- 5/4, Gelar Chowk,	]
Pimpri Colony, Near Jai Hind	]
School Pimpri, dist.: Pune Versus	]	… Petitioner
1. The State of Maharashtra	]
Through Pandharpur City	]
Police Station, Dist:- Solapur.	]	...Respondent No.1
2. Uzma Huzaifa Shah	]
(Ori. Complainant)	]
Age:- 30 years, Occu:- Doctor	]
R/at:-754, Govindpur,	]
Dist:- Solapur	]	...Respondent No.2

¶13

WRIT PETITIO	WITH N NO. 846	OF 2024
1. Sayed Mustaq Amjad Shah	]
(Cousin-brother-in-law)	]
Age 46 years, Occ.: Service	]
R/at- 201, Opel Flora,	]
Near Lifeline Hospital,	]
Kondhawa Khurd, Dist: Pune	]	… Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra	]

¶14

2 of 8

¶15

ZIP

¶16

J-WP-4607-2025-SM.doc

¶17

Through Pandharpur City ]
Police Station, Dist:- Solapur. ] ...Respondent No.1
2. Uzma Huzaifa Shah ]
(Ori. Complainant) ]
Age:- 30 years, Occu:- Doctor ]
R/at:-754, Govindpur, ]
Dist:- Solapur ] ...Respondent No.2
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2193 OF 2024
1. Sadika Mansoor Kazi ]
(Sister-in-law) ]
Age 36 years, Occ.:Service ]
R/at-Waikar Cottage Panchagani ]
Kimmins Girl School, Panchagani ] … Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra ]
Through Pandharpur City ]
Police Station, Dist:- Solapur. ] ...Respondent No.1
2. Uzma Huzaifa Shah ]
(Ori. Complainant) ]
Age:- 30 years, Occu:- Doctor ]
R/at:-754, Govindpur, ]
Dist:- Solapur ] ...Respondent No.2
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3633 OF 2025
1. Mubin Naeem Shah ]
(Cousin-brother-in-law) ]
Age:- 40 years, Occ:Service ]
Permanently R/at-Room No.4, ]

¶18

3 of 8

¶19

ZIP

¶20

J-WP-4607-2025-SM.doc

¶21

Sawant Chawl, Near ] ESI Hospital, Mohan Nagar, ] Chinchwad, Pune, ] Maharashtra, 411019 ] Presently residing at:-Jeddha, ] Saudi Arabia ] … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra ] Through Pandharpur City ] Police Station, Dist:- Solapur. ] ...Respondent No.1 2. Uzma Huzaifa Shah ] (Ori. Complainant) ] Age:- 30 years, Occu:- Doctor ] R/at:-754, Govindpur, ] Dist:- Solapur ] ...Respondents No.2

¶22

Mr. Hasnain Kazi a/w Adv. Indrajeet Paricharak, Adv. Shraddha Vavhal, Adv. Vrushali Maindad, adv. Hafizuddin Kazi, Adv. Gayatri Kulkarni and Adv. Simran Shaikh for the Petitioners. Adv. Ismail K. for the Respondent No.2. Ms. Priyanka Rane, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.

¶23

——————

¶24

Coram : M. S. Karnik & Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ.

¶25

Date : 24^th November 2025.

¶26

JUDGMENT ( PER : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )

¶27

1. All the matters arise out of a single First Information Report No.

¶28

0721 of 2023 dated 26.11.2023 registered at Pandharpur City Police

¶29

4 of 8

¶30

ZIP

¶31

J-WP-4607-2025-SM.doc

¶32

Station, Dist.- Solapur.

¶33

2. The complaint is filed by Smt. Uzma Huzaifa Shah-Sayyed under Sections 498A, 313, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). Complainant is Respondent No. 2 in each matter.

¶34

3. The sum and substance of the complaint is that the Complainant/Respondent No.2 married with the Sayyed Huzaiffa Faheem Shah ( Petitioner in Cr.W.P. No.4607 of 2025) on 02.01.2023, as per the rights and rituals of Muslim Community at Pune.

¶35

4. The Complainant seems to have complained that all the Petitioners in all above Petitions tortured her and committed the offences as are recorded in the First Information Report.

¶36

5. Today, the Complainant and petitioners in respective matters are present before us as mentioned above. The complainant makes a voluntary statement before us that she has resolved the controversy with Mr. Sayyed Huzaiffa Faheem Shah, whereby they have amicably and with mutual understanding severed from each other.

¶37

6. The complainant and her ex-husband i.e. the Petitioner Mr. Sayyed Huzaiffa Faheem Shah jointly submit that they have separated from each other with their free will within the meaning of law and that they have already decided to dislodge the cases pending inter-se the parties.

¶38

7. The Petitioners submit a note thereby giving description of the

¶39

5 of 8

¶40

ZIP

¶41

J-WP-4607-2025-SM.doc

¶42

parties to the litigation and their presence in today’s proceeding. The note is taken on record and marked as “X” for the sake of identity. On the basis of the said note, it seems that Mr. Sayyed Huzaiffa Faheem Shah (present in the Court) is the husband of Complainant, Mr. Sayyed Faheem Rashid Shah (present through VC from Pune) is the father-in-law of the Complainant, Smt. Sayyed Shaheen Faheem Shah (present through VC from Pune) is the mother-in-law of the Complainant, Mr. Sayyed Naseeruddin Faheem Shah (present in the Court) is the brother-in-law of the Complainant, Smt. Sadika Mansoor Kazi (present through VC from Panchagani) is the sister-in-law of the Complainant, Mr. Sayyed Mustaq Amjad Shah and Mubin Naeem Shah (both present in the Court) are the cousins-brother-in-law of the Complainant, and Smt. Tabassum Imtiyaz Shah (present through VC from Pune) is the cousin-mother-in-law of the Complainant.

¶43

8. The Complainant has also tendered before us an affidavit notarized on 24.11.2025, whereby she accepts and agrees the contentions stated by the petitioners and records her voluntary consent for settlement as also for quashing the criminal proceeding that is pending at her instance. The Complainant also gives description of the cases those were pending between the parties. Complainant’s affidavit is taken on record and marked as “X/2” for identity.

¶44

6 of 8

¶45

ZIP

¶46

J-WP-4607-2025-SM.doc

¶47

9. As such, both the parties would submit that the present Petitions be allowed and the “Charge-sheet No. 120 of 2024 filed in the court of the Ld. 3^rd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pandharpur registered as RCC No.478 of 2024 arising out of First Information Report No.721/2023, U/Sec. 498 (A), 323, 504, 506, 313 read with 34 of Indian penal Code registered with the Pandharpur City Police Station,” be quashed and set aside.

¶48

10. It is pertinent to note that the Complainant herself is present before us and is well assisted by her learned Counsel. Upon making query to the Complainant specifically in her mother tongue, she asserted the above story of settlement and confirms that prosecution under challenge be quashed and set aside.

¶49

11. In view of the above we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution arising out of matrimonial dispute if continued, it would amount to abuse of process of law. The matrimonial controversy itself has already come to an end, the husband and wife have already separated from each other and enjoying their independent lives.

¶50

12. Under such circumstances the present proceedings if allowed to continue, would even harm the future of these parties, and recurrently confront and remind them of the bitter relationship. As such the prosecution would be a futile exercise with no object of any just reason.

¶51

7 of 8

¶52

ZIP

¶53

J-WP-4607-2025-SM.doc

¶54

13. Hence, we pass following order:-

¶55

::ORDER::

¶56

A) The Petitions stand allowed;

¶57

B) The Charge-sheet No. 120 of 2024 filed in the court of the Ld. 3^rd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pandharpur registered as RCC No.478 of 2024 arising out of First Information Report No.721/2023, U/Sec. 498 (A), 323, 504, 506, 313 read with 34 of Indian penal Code registered with the Pandharpur City Police Station is quashed and set aside.

¶58

C) The proceedings in the RCC No.478 of 2024 pending in the Court of Learned 3^rd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pandharpur, also stands dropped.

¶59

D) Petitions disposed of accordingly.

¶60

[ Ajit B. Kadethankar, J. ] [ M. S. Karnik, J. ]

¶61

8 of 8

¶62

ZIP

Tabassum Imtiyaz Shah v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tabassum Imtiyaz Shah v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Sagar Laxman Mhetre and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary and Ors.

Devata Shamrao Shete vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary and Ors.

Dilip Hanumant Metkari and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, Education Dept. and Ors.

Balu Vithoba Kamble Vs Collector and Deputy Director for Rehabilitation and Ors.

Dr. Amol Gurunath Kelkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Santosh Shivdas Patil Vs the Commissioner of Sangli Miraj Kupwad City Corporation , Dist. Sangli and Ors.