1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPELLATE SIDE, CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 3285 OF 2009 1. Sk. Arif S/o Sk. Bashiruddin, Age: 34 years, Occu.: Business, R/o Mukund Nagar, Near Marium Masjid, Ahmednagar. 2. Sk. Bashir S/o Sk. Hafizoddin, Age: 55 years, Occu.: Business, R/o as above. 3. Sk. Miraj S/o Sk. Bashir, Age: 35 years, Occu.: Business, R/o as above. 4. Sk. Sairabi Sk. Bashiruddin, Age: 45 years, Occu.: Household, R/o as above. 5. Sk. Azim S/o Sk. Bashiruddin, Age: 43 years, Occu.: Business, R/o as above. 6. Rizwana W/o Sk. Arif, Age: 35 years, Occu.: Household, R/o as above. 7. Shabana W/o Ansar Jagirdar, Age: 30 years, Occu.: Household, R/o as above. ... APPLICANTS VERSUS Shamim Begum W/o Sk. Arif, Age: 30 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Gangapur, Tq. Gangapur, District: Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENT *** Mr. S. S. Sayyed, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. R. V. Gore, Advocate for the Respondent/ sole. *** 2 CORAM: K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED: 12th OCTOBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER: 1. Heard. Rule. By consent, heard finally. The applicant/ husband Shaikh Arif and his other relations, in terms of section 482 of Cr.P.C., seek quashment of prosecution vide R.C.C. No.73 of 2009, pending at the file of learned J.M.F.C., Gangapur for offence under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 (2) read with 34 of IPC. 2. The factual details are, the Respondent Shamim Begum married to Shaikh Arif in the year 1998. The parties did not sail well. There was a prosecution in terms of section 498-A vide RCC 16 of 1999, based on compounding, the husband and other relations were acquitted. The wife Shamim Begum joined husband, however, the bickering continued. Owing to such harassment, she again was forced to leave matrimonial home, followed with accusations of ill-treatment, giving rise to SCC 272 of 2001 which also turned into compounding and dismissed. 3. Then comes the present proceedings. Counsel for the husband contemplate that reading the complaint, ingredients of section 498-A IPC are not surfacing, no specific role to the second wife Applicant No.6 Rizwana is attributed and since there is no continuation of so called ill- treatment, the Court should not have issued process for infraction of section 498-A of IPC. 4. The counsel would submit, the earlier prosecution 3 having turned into acquittal being RCC No.16 of 1999, it will vibrate in quashment of the subsequent prosecution challenged in the present proceedings. 5. Though apparently, the parties are not sailing well and more prone as court-birds, the fact remains that there were proceedings for maintenance moved by the wife in which also there was an attempt of settlement. It was in this scenario as the wife was not maintained by her husband, she was residing at her parental home. The husband with his associates allegedly, on 8th February, 2009 barged at the residence of wife at Gangapur in the afternoon and they commended her to accept Rs.60,000/- to join the husband and he will cohabit with her or to give a customary divorce (Talak) and to withdraw the maintenance case. Since the wife did not concede to said command, the applicants (original accused) got estranged and annoyed and out of such enragement in their mind they have blown their annoyance by exerting fists blows and kicks associated with abuses. She was threatened to set afire if she did not concede to their demand. According to the wife, this has been witnessed by her brother and other witnesses who intervened and she was rescued. Since police did not coordinate with her she was forced to prosecute by filing complaint before leaned JMFC. 6. The above referred accusations in unmistakable terms illustrate a new arena of event dated 8th February, 2009. Though it has rein of continuation of the past bickering and acrimony between the parties, the situation as created by the husband is displayed in the complaint. It 4 cannot be said that complaint by the wife is a ruse or a liver used to prosecute or persecute the husband and other members, as a cloak. In the situation, I do not agree that the prosecution is an abuse of the court process. 7. The reliance to the judgment in the matter of "Vhishnu Radhkishan Shinde and others V/s State of Maharashtra and another" [2009 (2) Bom. C.R.(Cri.) 371 of brother Judge has no application to the facts of the present case. 8. Application dismissed. Rule discharged. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Dated:12/10/2009. ans/3285 5 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.: OF 2009 Date of decision: 12th OCTOBER, 2009. For approval and signature THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE K. U. CHANDIWAL. . Whether Reporters of local papers ... Yes may be allowed to see the judgment? . To be referred to the Reporter or not? ... No . Whether Their Lordships wish to see ... No the fair copy of the judgment? . Whether this case involves a substantial ... No question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder? . Whether it is to be circulated to the ... No Civil Judges? . Whether the case involves an important ... No question of law and whether a copy of the judgment should be sent to Nagpur, Goa and Bombay offices? [G. F. ANSARI] PRIVATE SECRETARY TO THE HONOURABLE JUDGE