SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

SHAIKH WASEEM QALANDAR PATEL AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR – Respondent
WP 1655/2020



Advocates:
['Saeed S Shaikh', 'COPY SERVED ON PP', '', 'Adv S B Kadu', 'A R joshi']

{1}

Cri.Wp1655.20.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1655 OF 2020

1.

Shaikh Waseem S/o. Qalandar Patel,

Age. 38 years, Occ. Agri.,

R/o. Shaan Manzil,

Kolthanwadi Road, Harsool,

Aurangabad.

2.

Kalandar S/o. Magan Patel,

Age. 72 years, Occ. Nil,

R/o. H.No. 15-2-181, Patel Nagar,

Jalgaon Road, Harsool,

Aurangabad.

3.

Shareefabi S/o. Kalandar Patel,

Age. 68 years, Occ. Nil,

R/o. As above.

4.

Shaikh Shameem W/o. Ayyub,

(Shameembi Ayyub Qureshi)

Age. 44 years, Occ. Household,

R/o. Plot No. 01, Near Maruti Mandir,

Chetnanagar, Harsool,

Aurangabad.

5.

Shaikh Ayyub S/o. Abdul Raheman,

(Ayyub Qureshi Raheman Qureshi),

Age. 47 years, Occ. Agri.,

R/o. As above.

6.

Rabiya Bano W/o. Shaikh Waseem

(Saba Anjum D/o. Razzak Patel)

Age. 27 years, Occ. Household,

R/o. Shaan Manzil,

Kolthanwadi Road, Harsool,

Aurangabad.

7.

Shaikh Razzak S/o. Manik,

(Razzak Patel Manik Patel)

{2}

Cri.Wp1655.20.odt

Age. 64 years, Occ. Household,

R/o. Plot No. J-16,

Beri Bagh, Harsool,

Aurangabad.

8.

Naseemabi W/o. Razzak Shaikh,

(Ameena Razzak Patel)

Age. 64 years, Occ. Labour,

R/o. As above.

…. Applicants

Versus

1.

The State of Maharashtra,

Through, Police Inspector,

Sillod City Police Station,

Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad.

2.

Nuzhat Jaha W/o. Shaikh Waseem Patel,

Age. 26 years, Occ. Private Job,

R/o. Near Aayesha Masjid, Mirza Colony,

Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad.

Cont. 9561401727

… Respondents

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Saeed S. Shaikh

APP for State : Mr. A.M. Phule

Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. S.B. Kadu

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &

RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2022.

JUDGMENT [PER : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.] :-

1.

By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioners who are original accused are

praying for quashing FIR No. 0095/2019 registered with Sillod City

Police Station, Sillod, District Aurangabad, for the offences punishable

{3}

Cri.Wp1655.20.odt

under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal

Code, and further for quashing the charge-sheet No. 30/2019 along with

the proceeding bearing RCC No. 121/2019 pending before the learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad.

A. FACTS :

2.

It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner No. 1 and

respondent No. 2 got married in the year 2014. Out of the said wedlock,

they have two children. After marriage, respondent No. 2 was treated

well for the period of one year. After one year, all the accused started

demanding monies and ill-treated her. They demanded amount of Rs. 5

Lakhs for purchasing sand’s truck. As the demand was not fulfilled, the

petitioners have physically and mentally tortured her. They kept her

hungry and driven out of the matrimonial house. Her parents requested

them to not to ill-treat her, even though they were torturing her by saying

that she is not of their standard or worthy. Due to such behaviour of

accused persons, she had given complaint in Women’s Grievance

Redressal Cell, Sillod. But the accused persons have not mark their

presence before the Women’s Grievance Redressal Cell. Hence, she filed

complaint with the Police, which was registered as FIR.

3.

The petitioners have filed present Criminal Writ Petition for

quashing the FIR. It is petitioners’ case in the Criminal Writ Petition that

petitioner No. 1 was earlier married with petitioner No. 6. However, the

married life of petitioner No. 1, with petitioner No. 6, ended with divorce

on 27.06.2014. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 married respondent No. 2.

From the said wedlock, the petitioner no. 1 and respondent No. 2, have

{4}

Cri.Wp1655.20.odt

two children. However, after sometime of marriage the respondent No. 2

demanded that the petitioner No. 1 with her should shif

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top