Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 454 (BOM)

Khwaja Munawar Sultana v. State of Maharashtra

2017-03-02

K.K.SONAWANE, S.S.SHINDE

body2017
JUDGMENT : S.S. Shinde, J. This Petition is filed praying therein for quashing of F.I.R. bearing Crime No. I-37 of 2016 dated 10th February, 2016 registered at Vaijapur Police Station, Aurangabad for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 120-B, 328, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners are married sisters of the husband of respondent No. 2. The petitioner No. 1 got married on 3rd February, 1991 and petitioner No. 2 got married on 18th November, 1999. The petitioners are living with their respective husbands and families. They are arrayed as accused Nos. 2 and 3 by respondent No. 2. It is submitted that, the brother of the petitioners got married with respondent No. 2 on 27th May, 2017 at Aurangabad, as per the Muslim rites and customs. Respondent No. 2 on 10th February, 2016, for the first time, alleged that, the petitioners and other family members have treated her well for two months, initially after the marriage and thereafter started harassing her to bring some money from her parents. It is alleged that, her husband got married to one Asma and both gave her medicines, which were injurious to her kidneys. It is submitted that, so far as the allegations of administration of wrong medicines, which affected the kidneys of respondent No. 2, are not against the present petitioners. Respondent No. 2 for the first time after lapse of nine years have came with a case of cruelty. The allegations in the First Information Report are vague and no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 voluntarily left the matrimonial home. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invites our attention to the allegations in the First Information Report and submits that, the allegations are general in nature, absurd and inherently improbable, and therefore, the First Information Report deserves to be quashed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placed reliance on the exposition of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 , Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 , G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad and others, (2000) 3 SCC 693 and Pramod Uttam Shinde and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 2015 AllMR(Cri) 4232. It is submitted that, the alleged incident had occurred at Aurangabad at matrimonial home and the First Information Report is filed at Vaijapur, which is beyond territorial jurisdiction of Vaijapur Police Station, and hence registration of the same is bad in law. In support of her contention, when the allegations are vague and omnibus in nature, the F.I.R. deserves to be quashed, the learned counsel placed reliance on the unreported judgment of this Court in the case of Asma Hashmi d/o Mumtaz Abdulgani Hashmi vs. State of Maharashtra in Criminal Application No. 1926 of 2016 decided on 13th April, 2016. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 has been under constant medications since 2010 and if the prescriptions of various medications of several doctors which are annexed to the present petition are seen, the same would show that, she has been complaining of abdominal pains and difficulties relating to abdomen since long and hence the solitary incident as alleged in the First Information Report which is punishable under section 328 of Indian Penal Code is highly improbable. It is submitted that, the allegations in respect of section 328 of Indian Penal Code are vague since the name of the medicine alleged to have been administered to her by the accused is not mentioned anywhere in the complaint and thus it raises a serious doubt over the authority of the allegations of administration of the medicine since one does not know the medicine, which though not admitted but for the sake of arguments may have been given to her and the medicine which she may have produced before respondent No. 1 and the doctor are one and the same and hence on the face of the complaint, the allegations are unbelievable and over exaggerated and hence the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be nothing but abuse of process of law and hence is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the Respondent/State submits that, the alleged offences have been disclosed against the petitioners, and therefore, those need investigation. 5. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 invites our attention to the allegations in the First Information Report and submits that, the allegations are serious in nature, which need investigation. Though the petitioners have been married, as a matter fact they are residing in the matrimonial home at Aurangabad. 6. 5. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 invites our attention to the allegations in the First Information Report and submits that, the allegations are serious in nature, which need investigation. Though the petitioners have been married, as a matter fact they are residing in the matrimonial home at Aurangabad. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondent/State and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 at length. 7. The allegations against the present petitioners in the First Information Report are as under :- “XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX” (Underlines added) 8. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the allegations in the First Information Report are omnibus and the alleged offences are not disclosed, cannot be accepted. Upon careful reading of the allegations in the First Information Report alleged offences are disclosed. When the investigation is in progress, it is not possible to reach to the definite conclusion that, the offence punishable under section 328 of the Indian Penal Code is not disclosed. So far as alleged offences under sections 120-B, 498-A, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the ingredients of the said offences are clearly attracted and the alleged offences have been disclosed. The First Information Report is not an encyclopedia. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of the witnesses, and prima facie, it appears that the material collected by the Investigating Officer lends support to the version of the informant in the First Information Report. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Bhaskar Lal Sharma and another vs. Monica and others, (2014) 3 SCC 383 in para 11 of the judgment has held that the facts, as alleged, in the complaint will have to be proved which can be done only in the course of a regular trial. The appreciation, in a summary manner, of the averments made in a complaint petition or F.I.R. would not be permissible at the stage of quashing of F.I.R. and the facts stated will have to be accepted as they appear on the very face of it. 10. The appreciation, in a summary manner, of the averments made in a complaint petition or F.I.R. would not be permissible at the stage of quashing of F.I.R. and the facts stated will have to be accepted as they appear on the very face of it. 10. The Supreme Court in the case of Taramani Prakash vs. State of M.P. and others, 2015 AIR(SC) (Supp) 704 has also taken a view that, the question whether the informant/complainant has infact been harassed and treated with cruelty is a matter of trial. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain this Petition for quashing of First Information Report. Hence the Petition stands rejected. The observations made hereinabove are, prima facie, in nature. The rejection of present Criminal writ Petition shall not be construed as an impediment in case the petitioners wish to avail of the appropriate remedy by way of filing the application for discharge in the event of filing charge-sheet by the Investigating Officer. Petition dismissed.