1 Cri.Appln.No.740/2010 with Cri.Appln.No.1623/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.740 OF 2010 Farheen Ahmedkhan & ors. ... PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri J.R. Shaikh, Advocate for petitioners Shri N.H. Borade, A.P.P. for respondent No.1. Shri S.T. Ghute, Advocate for respondent No.2. ..... W I T H CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1623 OF 2010 Yusuf Khan Ahmed Khan & ors. ... PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri J.R. Shaikh, Advocate for petitioners Shri N.H. Borade, A.P.P. for respondent No.1. Shri S.T. Ghute, Advocate for respondent No.2. ..... 2 Cri.Appln.No.740/2010 with Cri.Appln.No.1623/2010 CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 18th November, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. Perused applications and annexures thereto. 2. At the outset, Mr. J.R. Shaikh, learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that he is not pressing Criminal Application No.1623/2010. However, he submitted that, if one reads the complaint, annexed to the petition at Exhibit A, lodged by the respondent No.2 Tabassum Yousufkhan, wife of the petitioner No.1 in Criminal Application No.1623/2010, one gets a clear picture of the allegations made against the petitioners in both the petitions and as such, it can be seen that, the allegations against the petitioners in Criminal Application No.740/2010 i.e. the unmarried sisters, petitioner Nos.1 to 4 and married sisters and their husbands, petitioner Nos.5 to 11, of petitioner No.1 Yousufkhan (petitioner No.1 in Criminal Application No.1623/2010), do not constitute offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. All allegations, he submitted, found in para Nos.2 to 6 in the complaint appear to be of ill-treatment, not motivated by any lust for money or property to form the basis of the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. As regards para No.7 of the 3 Cri.Appln.No.740/2010 with Cri.Appln.No.1623/2010 complaint, he submitted that, at the most they can be read as incriminating allegations under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 made against accused Nos.1 to 6 i.e. the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 in both the petitions. He, therefore, urged for quashing of the charge sheet lodged by the police pursuant to the directions under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, passed in the said complaint as against petitioner Nos.4 to 11 in Criminal Application No.740/2010. 3. Perusal of the complaint and Exhibit A, as well as the F.I.R. Exhibit B, and the copies of the statements of the witnesses, recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, annexed to the petition, do reveal allegations of physical and mental cruelty meted out to the respondent No.2 at the hands of the petitioners in Criminal Application No.1623/2010 as well as petitioner Nos.1 to 7, 9, 11 and 13 in Criminal Application No. 740/2010. It is also pointed out by the respondents that the complaint is a composite one regarding the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the incriminating allegations are found to be made against all the petitioners at para 8 of the complaint at Exhibit A. 4 Cri.Appln.No.740/2010 with Cri.Appln.No.1623/2010 4. Reading of para 8 of the complaint Exhibit A reveals that, after the respondent No.2 was driven out of the matrimonial home, the accused Nos.1 to 3 were making threatening telephone calls and on 9.8.2008, accused Nos.1 to 8, 10, 12 and 14 i.e. petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in Criminal Application No.1623/2010 and petitioner Nos.5, 7, 9 and 11 in Criminal Application No.740/2010 – husbands of the married sisters of Yousufkhan had been to Osmanabad and had given mortal threats to the respondent No.2 for procuring divorce. However, such allegations as against the petitioner Nos.5, 7, 9 and 11 in Criminal Application No.740/2010 – husbands of the married sisters of Yousufkhan are conspicuously absent in the statements recorded by the police, of the complainant and the witnesses in course of the investigation ordered by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Osmanabad. The respondents could not point out from the papers of investigation any specific role assigned to these petitioners in the crime alleged. 5. On this backdrop, the continuation of the proceedings as against the petitioner Nos.5, 7, 9 and 11 in Criminal Application No.740/2010 will be abuse of the process of law for want of sufficient grounds to proceed against them. 5 Cri.Appln.No.740/2010 with Cri.Appln.No.1623/2010 6. In the result, Criminal Application No.740/2010 is partly allowed. Complaint and the proceedings of R.C.C. No.809/2008 as against the petitioner No.5 Nisar Shaikh, No.7 Asad Shaikh, No.9 Raju Shaikh and No.11 Sajid Shaikh, in Criminal Application No. 740/2010, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad are quashed ands et aside. As regards the other petitioners, the said complaint and proceedings in R.C.C. No.809/2008 shall proceed in accordance with law. 7. Criminal Application No.1623/2010 stands dismissed. ( U.D. SALVI, J. ) fmp/cri740.10