APPLN-1839-2023.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1839 OF 2023 1. Salman Khan Bismillah Khan Pathan 2. Nafisa Bee Bismillah Khan 3. Bismillah Khan Gulabrao Khan Pathan 4. Surayya Naz Manzoor Khab 5. Rashida Khatun Gufran Ahemad 6. Farida Begam Bismillah Khan ...Applicants VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Nasreen Begam Salman Khan Pathan ...Respondents Mr. Rehan Khan h/f Adv. G. R. Syed, advocate for applicants Ms. S. P. Joshi, APP for Respondent-State Mr. Sayyed Umair Pasha A Quaker, Advocate for Respondent no. 2 ... CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J DATE : SEPTEMBER 09, 2026 P. C. : 1. At the outset, it needs to be recorded that application of applicant no. 1 stood disposed of as withdrawn by this Court’s order dated 16th June 2023. 2. By this application applicant nos. 2 to 6 seeks quashment of the FIR filed on 04.02.2023 bearing no. 32/2023 registered at Parbhani Rural Police Station, Parbhani for offences punishable under section 498A, 323,504, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code and consequential proceeding in R.C.C. No. 509/2023 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at 2026:BHC-AUG:42415-DB APPLN-1839-2023.odt Parbhani along with order of issuing summon/process against the applicants. 3. According to the First Information Report the marriage between the applicant no.1 and respondent no. 2/informant was solemnised on 24.12.2017 as per Muslim rites and customs. Out of said wedlock a female child was born on 13.11.2018 namely Zainab Fatema. It is a case of prosecution that after approximately one month of proper cohabitation, the applicants started harassing, abusing, and ill-treating her over continuous demands for money to purchase a "Chhota Hathi" auto-rickshaw, as well as demanding construction materials i.e. sand, metal, aggregate from her father's tipper truck business. The informant alleges that during Ramzan 2018, a specific demand for Rs. 2 lakh was made. Further, applicants expressed dissatisfaction regarding the girl child’s dark complexion and subjected the informant o physical assault, mental harassment, and death threats. Whereas the instances of instigation and assault are also attributed to the applicant no. 4 to 6. After several informal compromise meetings failed to resolve the marital dispute, the informant submitted an application to the Bharosa Cell which later culminated in the registration of present crime. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the crime registered against the applicants is vexatious. Applicants are innocent of the APPLN-1839-2023.odt alleged offences and share no domestic relationship with respondent no. 2, making the complaint false and frivolous on its face. It is further submitted that the FIR is delayed, vague, and devoid of any specific attribution against the applicants, reflecting a case of personal vendetta stemming from marital discord rather than legitimate allegations of harassment. It is contended that criminal proceedings initiated out of personal malice without a prima facie case ought to be quashed. Learned counsel for applicants relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604), Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. (AIR 2013 SC 181), Neelu Chopra and others v. Bharti (2010 Cr.L.J. 448), and Taramani Parakh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2015) 11 SCC 413. 5. Per contra, the learned APP and the learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 vehemently opposed the grant of any relief to the present applicants, contending that a perusal of the record clearly discloses the commission of cognizable offences. It is submitted that the allegations in the FIR are neither vague nor omnibus, as they explicitly specify demands for a "Chhota Hathi", construction materials, and a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs during Ramzan Eid in 2018. It is further contended that the applicants subjected the informant to physical and mental harassment, causing severe psychological and physical trauma, which was further aggravated by malicious taunts directed at the informant on account of the dark APPLN-1839-2023.odt complexion of the newborn female child. Furthermore, it is argued that the separate residence of applicants does not automatically absolve the applicants and that such disputed questions of fact are matters best left to be examined and adjudicated upon during the course of the trial. 6. Having considered the FIR and documents placed on record, it is clear that the applicants have been roped into the present crime on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations without any specific, overt acts being attributed to them. Furthermore, the applicants reside separately from the matrimonial home of Applicant No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, which reflects the common tendency in matrimonial disputes to implicate relatives without verifying their actual role. As held in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. (supra) and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court observes that in the absence of specific and concrete allegations against distant relatives, forcing them to undergo the rigors of a criminal trial would amount to an abuse of the judicial process. 7. In view of above discussion, application stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘B’, ‘B-1’, and ‘C-1’. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) Malani