(1)

criappln-479.2019.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.479 OF 2019

1.

Dr. Irfan s/o Hamid Khan

2.

Hamid Khan s/o Mehboob Khan

3.

Zakiya Begum w/o Hamid Khan

4.

Farheen Khanam w/o Shaikh Jameer

5.

Afreen Khan Sayyad Ashfak

6.

Samreen Khan d/o Hameed Khan

7.

Irshad Khan s/o Hameed Khan

8.

Shaikh Zameer s/o Shaikh Dadan

9.

Yusuf Khan s/o Mehboob

Applicants

Versus

1.

The State of Maharashtra

2.

Dr. Farheen w/o Irfan Khan

Respondents

...

Mr. S.M. Kulkarni, Advocate for the applicants.

Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, A.P.P. for respondent No. 1 – State.

Mr. S.S. Kazi, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

...

CORAM :

V.K. JADHAV AND

SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.

DATE :

12-01-2022.

ORDER (Per Sandipkumar C. More ) :

1.

By consent, heard fnally at the stage of

admission.

(2)

criappln-479.2019.odt

2.

Learned Counsel for the applicants argued for

some time and then on instructions seeks leave to withdraw

the application of present applicant Nos.1 to 3 who are the

husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of respondent No. 2

– informant. Accordingly, leave granted and the application of

present applicant No. 1 Dr. Irfan s/o Hamid Khan (husband

of respondent No. 2), applicant No. 2 Hamid Khan s/o

Mehboob Khan (father-in-law of respondent No.2) and

applicant No.3 Zakiya Begum w/o Hamid Khan (mother-in-

law of respondent No. 2) is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.

3.

The applicants are seeking quashing of F.I.R. in

Crime No. 22/2019 registered with Vimantal Police Station,

Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,

494, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

(for short “I.P.C.”).

4.

Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that

though the names of the present applicants are mentioned in

the F.I.R., but there are allegations of general nature against

them. No role with specifc details, such as, day and dates is

attributed to them in respect of the alleged ill-treatment to

(3)

criappln-479.2019.odt

respondent No. 2. He further submits that this is a clear case

of over-implication since almost all the family members of the

husband of respondent No. 2 – informant are arrayed as an

accused.

5.

On the contrary, learned Counsel for respondent

No. 2 submits that the names of the applicants are mentioned

in the F.I.R. with specifc role attributed against each of them.

Further, considering the nature of those allegations, the

complaint cannot be rejected at the threshold by exercising

powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

(for short “Cr.P.C.”) as the allegations as to the conduct of the

applicants are certainly suffcient to infer that they subjected

respondent No. 2 – informant to cruelty. It is further

submitted that there is triable case against the applicants,

and therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed.

6.

We have also heard the learned A.P.P. for

respondent No.1 – State.

7.

We have carefully gone through the allegations

made in the complaint and also perused the material on

record. Though the names of these applicants are mentioned

(4)

criappln-479.2019.odt

in the F.I.R., but on perusal of the same, these allegations

appear omnibus and even absurd in nature. Moreover, the

same are general in nature and no role of each of the

applicant with respect to the specifc day and date, is

mentioned therein. This certainly appears a case of over-

implication since all the family members have been implicated

in the crime. Further, the allegations appear mainly against

the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of respondent

No.2 whose application is already withdrawn and dismissed.

8.

In the case of Gita Mehrotra and others v. State of

U.P. and others, reported in AIR 2013 SC 181, the Supreme

Court has observed that “Courts are expected to adopt a

cautious approach in matters of quashing specially in cases

of matrimonial dispute whether th