51apl849.2020.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 849 OF 20 20 APPLICANTS :- 1) Mr. Shabbir s/o Sheikh Mastan, Aged about 37 years. 2) Begum B W/o Sheikh Mastan, Aged about 70 years. 3) Mr. Illiyas s/o Mastan, Aged about 49 years. All resident of AI Hasan Road, Azad Nagar, Shegaon, District Buldhana. 4) Shenaz Bano w/o Younis Khan, Aged about 48 years, R/o Tipu Sultan Chowk, Shegaon, District Buldhana. ..VERSUS.. NON- APPLICANTS :- 1) State of Maharashtra, through its Station House Officer, Police Station, Chandur Bazar, Amravati (Rural), District Amravati. 2) Shagufta Shahin w/o Shabbir, Aged about 33 years, R/o Saifi Nagar, Chandur Bazar (Shirajgaon Bund), Paratwada Road, Chandurbazar, District Amravati. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr.Anirudh Ananthakrishnan, counsel for applicants Mr. Nikhil Joshi, APP for non-applicant/State. None for non-applicant No.2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- rkn 2026:BHC-NAG:4893-DB 51apl849.2020.odt 2 CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE , J. DATE : 24 /0 3 /2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. ADMIT. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for non-applicant No.1/State. 3. Despite service of notice, none appears for the non- applicant No.2. 4. The present application is preferred by the applicants for quashing for FIR in connection with Crime No. 445 of 2020 registered by the non-applicant No.1 – Police Station Chandur Bazar, District Amravati (Rural), for the offences punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Marriage) Act, 2019. 5. In the present case, the applicants No.1 is the husband, and applicant Nos.2 to 4 are the in-laws of the non- applicant No.2. The crime is registered against the present applicants on the allegation that the marriage of non- applicant No.2 was solemnized with the applicant no.1 on 21/11/2010 at Chandur Bazar, Amravati, as per Muslim rites. Thereafter, non-applicant No.2 started cohabiting with her rkn 51apl849.2020.odt 3 husband and his family members at Shegaon, District Buldhana. Few days after the marriage, the complainant faced a demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the parents of the complainant for contractorship business of the applicant No.1. It is alleged that applicant no.1 subjected her for the physical and mental torture. The other applicants were also instigating him, and therefore she was constrained to leave the matrimonial house. It is further alleged that when she left the matrimonial house and was started residing at her parents house, the applicant No.1 declared talaq to her by telephonic communication. It is also alleged that the other applicants have also threatened her, and thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged by the complainant that, applicant Nos. 2 to 4 threatened her that if she files any complaint, they will set her father’s house on fire and kill them.. On the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime against the present applicants. 6. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, who submitted that initially, with similar allegations, an FIR was lodged under Section 498-A of the IPC. He further submitted that, as far as the husband is concerned, he is not pressing the application. rkn 51apl849.2020.odt 4 7. It is submitted that the offence under Section 4 is not made out against the applicant Nos.2 to 4. He submitted that Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, will be applicable against the applicant No.1/husband, as it states that whoever pronounces talaq, as referred to in Section 3, upon his wife shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. 8. Thus, it is submitted that Section 4 at the most, would apply only to applicant No.1 and not against the applicant Nos.2 to 4. It is further submitted that, as far as the offence of criminal intimidation is concerned, on the basis of general, vague and omnibus allegations, the applicant Nos.2 to 4 are implicated alleging that they have threatened her. No specific instances narrated as to the threatening by the applicant Nos. 2 to 4 and therefore, on the basis of omnibus and general allegations, they cannot be forced to face the trial. In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed. 9. Learned APP strongly opposed the said contention and submitted that, considering the threatening words and the possibility of dire consequences, the offence of criminal intimidation is made out. In view of that, the application deserves to be rejected. 10. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the entire record, it is noted that though charge-sheet is not filed, the investigation papers were perused. As far as the applicant rkn 51apl849.2020.odt 5 No.1 is concerned, for whom the application is already not pressed against whom the offence under Section 4 is made out. 11. As far as the applicant Nos.2 to 4 are concerned, they are prosecuted only with an allegations that they threatened her and thereby committed an offence of criminal intimidation. The definition of ‘criminal intimidation’ is given under Section 503, which states that, whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. The explanation given under Section 503 shows that a threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section. 12. To attract the Section 506 of IPC, a person whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend two years, or with fine, or with both; 13. Section 506 of IPC is divided into two parts. The first part deals with the offence of criminal intimidation in view of definition given under Section 503 of IPC. The second part deals with cases where the threat is to cause death or rkn 51apl849.2020.odt 6 grievous hurt etc. 14. If the allegations in the present case are taken into consideration in the light of the definition given and in the light of 506 (2) of IPC admittedly no specific instances is narrated by the non-applicant No.2 as to the said threatening. There is no specific allegations actually who has threatened the non-applicant No.2. It is apparent that merely because they are the relatives of the applicant No.1, the general, omnibus and vague allegations is levelled against them to implicate them in the alleged offence. Thus, no prima-facie case is made out against the applicant Nos. 2 to 4, and therefore, the application deserves to be partly allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order. ORDER a] The criminal Application is partly allowed. b] The FIR in connection with Crime No. 445 of 2020 registered by the non-applicant No.1 – Police Station Chandur Bazar, District Amravati (Rural), for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Marriage) Act, 2019 is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of the applicant Nos. 2 to 4. c] The application, insofar as applicant No.1 is rkn 51apl849.2020.odt 7 concerned, is not pressed and is accordingly disposed of.. 15. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (URMILA JOSHI PHALKE , J. ) rkn