APPLN-2107-2024.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2107 OF 2024 1. Imran Khan Noorkha Pathan 2. Ishrat Khan Noorkha Pathan 3. Shahrukh Khan Noorkha Pathan 4. Saniya Khan Noorkha Pathan 5. Khaja Pasha Shaikh 6. Reshma Begum W/o Awes Hashmi ...Applicants VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Gazala Muskan W/o Imran Khan ...Respondents Mr. S. S. Dargad, Advocate for applicant Mrs. R. P. Gour, APP for Respondent-State CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 03, 2026 PER COURT : 1. By consent of the both sides, heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. In spite of service of notice on Respondent No. 2, none appears. This shows that Respondent No. 2 has no inclination to oppose application. Hence, Application is heard in absence of Respondent No. 2. 3. After hearing learned Counsels for both sides and when this Court has shown its disinclination to grant any relief to Applicant No. 2026:BHC-AUG:41332-DB APPLN-2107-2024.odt 1/husband, learned Counsel for Applicants, on instructions, seeks withdrawal of Application qua Applicant No. 1. 4. In view of this, Application to the extent of Applicant No. 1 stands dismissed as withdrawn. 5. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant Nos. 2 to 6 seek to quashment of the proceeding pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad bearing Regular Criminal Case No. 98/2025 arising out of Crime No. 73/2024 registered at Kotwali Police Station, District Parbhani, for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. 6. It is a case of prosecution that the First Information Report was lodged on 12.03.2024 by Respondent no.2/complainant. The marriage between the Respondent no. 2 and applicant no. 1 was solemnized on 28.10.2021 as per Muslim Rituals and customs. A girl child was born from the said wedlock on 15.10.2022. It is alleged that the Complainant was treated well by her in-laws for only the initial 3 to 4 months of marriage. At the time of marriage, the Complainant’s father spent Rs. 50,000/- and gifted 10 tolas of gold along with household articles. Applicant No. 1 runs a transport business at Vasmat with 4 to 5 trucks and owns ancestral APPLN-2107-2024.odt agricultural land at Dhangar Takali, District Parbhani. It is further alleged that after the marriage, the Complainant discovered that Applicant No. 1 had a pre-marital affair out of which a male child was born. When the Complainant confronted her mother-in-law regarding this, she was physically assaulted by applicant no. 1 and applicant no. 3. Additionally, the Complainant alleged that applicant no.2 subjected her to an unlawful demand of dowry of Rs. 10 lakh for expanding the business of Applicant No. 1 and physically assaulted her for non-fulfillment. The Complainant further alleged that when she narrated these incidents to a relative, Applicant No. 6 the said relative acted in collusion with Applicant No. 2 to harass and insult her. In August 2022, the Complainant went to her maternal home, alleging that her in-laws continued to harass her due to the birth of a girl child. On 05.11.2023, the Complainant called applicant no. 1 and applicant no. 2 for a mediation meeting. During this meeting, the applicant no.2 allegedly stated that their son was already married, that his male child from the first marriage was the sole legal heir, and refused to take the Complainant back. Subsequently, the Applicant no. 1 and applicant no. 3 allegedly assaulted the Complainant and her father with kicks and blows. The Applicants also allegedly threatened her by saying, "तू आमच्या घरी आलीस तर तुला जीवे मारू" (If you come to our house, we will kill you), Hence, the present FIR came to be lodged. Page 3 of 6 APPLN-2107-2024.odt 7. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that allegations in the FIR are completely false, frivolous, and vexatious. A bare reading of the complaint reveals that no specific overt act of cruelty has been mentioned or attributed to the individual Applicants. The allegations are general, omnibus, and sweeping in nature, completely lacking specific particulars such as exact dates, times, or places of the alleged incidents. The Learned Counsel further submits that Applicant No. 3 is a public servant working as a Police Constable at Hingoli. Furthermore, Applicant No. 4 is a student pursuing her higher education at Loha, District Nanded, and resides completely away from the matrimonial shared household. Applicant No. 5 i.e. Maternal Uncle of Applicant No. 1 and Applicant No. 6 i.e. Maternal Aunt of Applicant No. 1 are distant relatives of the Complainant who live independently and have absolutely no concern or interference with the matrimonial affairs of Applicant No. 1 and Respondent No. 2. Applicant No. 5 is working as the Principal at Al-Rizwana Junior College and Group of Schools, Kandhar, District Nanded, whereas Applicant No. 6 is serving as an Assistant Teacher at the Zilla Parishad Central Primary School (Girls), Ardhapur, District Nanded. It is submitted that Applicants are non-resident, distant relatives who have been roped into these criminal proceedings solely due to their relationship with Applicant No. 1. Implicating extended family members with vague and general allegations constitutes a gross abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the present First Information Report is wholly APPLN-2107-2024.odt untenable and legally liable to be quashed in the interest of justice. Learned Counsel for applicants placed reliance on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court- 1. Geeta Mehrotra and others v.s State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2012 (10) SCC 741 2. Shakson Belthissor v.s State of Kerala reported in 2010 AIR SCW 2494 3. Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v.s State of Bihar reported in 2022 AIR (SC) 820 4. State of Haryana and others v/s Ch. Bhajan Lal and others (1992) Cri. L. J. 527 8. The learned APP strongly opposes the present Criminal Application. She submits that the allegation in the First Information Report disclose the commission of cognizable offenses. She contends that there are specific allegations in the FIR regarding the demand of dowry of Rs. 10 lakh for business expansion and that in-laws physically assaulted the Complainant. The learned APP further argues that the alleged incident dated 05.11.2023 clearly shows that the Complainant and her father were subjected to physical assault. She argues that the charge-sheet has been filed and the evidence on record must be tested during the trial. She therefore submits that since a prima facie case is made out against all the Applicants, trial must proceed. 9. Considering the rival submissions of both the sides and documents placed on record, the allegations in FIR have failed to attribute any specific date, time, location, or distinct overt act of physical or mental APPLN-2107-2024.odt cruelty to Applicant no. 2 to 6 nor even approximately. Undeniably, place of work/residence of these applicants are different than the place of cohabitation of informant. Therefore, continuing criminal proceedings against the applicant no. 3 would result in a severe miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, continuing criminal proceedings against distant relatives i.e. applicant nos. 3 to 6 on the strength of general and omnibus allegations constitutes a gross abuse of the judicial process, as held in the case of Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttarpradesh,(2012) 10 SCC 741 and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, (2022) AIR (SC) 820. 10. Therefore, continuing the criminal proceedings against the applicant nos. 2 to 6 is an abuse of the process of law, as per the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others (1992) Cri. L. J. 527. 11. In view of the above, application stands allowed in terms of clauses ‘B’ and ‘B-1’. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) Malani