1 apl742.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.742 OF 2026 1. Mohd. Abu Bakkar Mohd. Najmullah, (husband) Aged about 44 years, Occupation : Business, 2. Mohd. Najmullah Mohd. Usman, (father-in-law) Aged about 64 years, Occupation : Occu. Business, 3. Akthar Be Mohd. Najmullah (mother-in-law) Aged about 56 years,Occupation : Business 4. Mohd. Usmar Mohd. Najmullah, (brother-in-law) Aged about 49 years, 5. Mohd. Usman Mohd. Najmullah, (brother-in-law) Aged about 46 years, Occupation : Agriculturist, 6. Mohd. Ali Mohd. Najmullah,(brother-in-law) Aged about 32 years, Occupation : Business, Nos.1 to 6 R/o. Khadakipura, Near Masjid, Pimpalgaon Raja, Tq. Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhana. 7. Fatema Mohd. Kalim, (sister-in-law) Aged about 29 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Nai Nagari Lonar, Tah. Mehkar District – Buldhana. 8. Aamena Mohd. Kalim,(sister-in-law) Aged about 32 years, Occupation : Household, 9. Khudeja Mohd. Najmullah, (sister-in-law) Aged about 33 years, Occupation : Household, Nos.8 & 9 R/o. Khadakipura, Near Masjid, Pimpalgaon Raja, Tq. Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhana. ...APPLICANTS ...V E R S U S... 2026:BHC-NAG:12484 2 apl742.26.odt 1. Aafrin Be Abu Bakkar, Aged about 28 years, Occupation : Household, 2. Sheikh Arman Mohd. Abu Bakkar, Aged : Minor, Occu. Education, through natural guardian mother respondent no.1-Aafrin Be Abu Bakkar, Both r/o. Sheikh Gulab Sheikh Hafiz, Rajakinhi, Tq. Malegaon, District – Washim. At present C/o. Sheikh Azaz Sheikh Ayaz, Darga Chowk, Ansing, Tah. and District – Washim. ...NON-APPLICANTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri G.G. Mishra, Advocate for applicants. Shri Saurabh Singh, Amicus curiae. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- M.W. CHANDWANI, J. DATE :- 15.09.2026 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard. Admit. 2. The applicants seek quashing of the domestic violence proceedings bearing P.W.D.V.A. Application No.90/2022 dated 16.11.2022 filed by non-applicant no.1 – wife under Section 12 read with Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Washim against the applicants. 3. In the domestic violence application, non-applicant no.1 has claimed that she got married to applicant No. 1 on 3 apl742.26.odt 12.05.2014 and since then, she resided in the joint family of the applicants. It is alleged in the application that after some time, the applicants started harassing her physically, mentally and economically. Applicant No.1 sold the ornaments of non-applicant No.1 for his business and thereafter, started asking her to bring an amount of 3 lakhs from her parents. It is also alleged that on ₹ 25.08.2015, when she was pregnant, she was abused and assaulted by the applicants who tried to abort the child. She was taken to her parents’ home where she delivered a baby girl. Till 2018, nobody came to fetch her. Therefore, the father of non- applicant No.1 dropped her at her matrimonial home and also paid an amount of 1.5 lakhs to the applicants but the harassment ₹ continued till the year 2020. Therefore, she left her matrimonial house and started residing at her parental home. In the application, she asked for a protection order, restraining order, maintenance as well as compensation from the applicants. 4. It is to be noted here that initially, the applicants had approached this Court for quashing the DV proceedings. However, the same came to be withdrawn for the reason that the law prevailing at that time was that DV proceedings cannot be quashed by exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Code of 4 apl742.26.odt Criminal Procedure. An unsuccessful attempt was made before the trial Court as well as the Sessions Court for quashing the DV proceedings. Recently, the Supreme Court in the month of May 2025 in the decision of Saurabh Kumar Tripathi vs. Vidhi Rawal, (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1158) has ruled that even DV proceedings can be quashed under the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482. Hence, this present application is filed for quashing the DV proceedings. 5. Though, non-applicant No.1 was served by private mode as well as by regular mode, but nobody appears on behalf of her. Therefore, the Court appointed Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as the learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court. Perused the record. 7. It is revealed from the record that the applicants and non-applicant No.1 are not residing together since the year 2014, which is palpable from the reply of non-applicant No.1 dated 25.08.2018 to the notice issued by applicant No.1 dated 19.07.2018. In the said reply, non-applicant No.1 has specifically stated that she had given triple talaq to applicant No.1 and since 5 apl742.26.odt 2014, she is not having any physical relationship with applicant No.1. Non-applicant no.1 has denied the paternity of applicant No.1 with regard to non-applicant no.2 (son). The notice dated 19.07.2018 further depicts that applicant no.1 has specifically averred that non-applicant no.1 has performed second marriage, however, the said argument has not been denied by non-applicant No.1 in her reply. It is to be noted here that non-applicant no.1 has signed the reply dated 25.07.2018 using the last name of her husband i.e. by the name of Afreen Bi Sheikh Azaz. 8. The record further reveals that applicant No.1 had applied under Sections 10 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for custody of non-applicant No.2 (son) which is pending before the District Judge-1, Khamgaon wherein, non-applicant no.1 has reiterated the contents of the reply contending that applicant No.1 has no concern with non-applicant No.2. Notably, later on, in the year 2023, non-applicant No.1 lodged FIR No.213/2023 with Police Station, Aansingh, District Washim alleging cruelty at the hands of the applicants. Offences under Section 498-A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) came to be registered against the applicants. This court, by order dated 08.04.2025, quashed and set aside the FIR in 6 apl742.26.odt Criminal Application (APL) No. 1244/2023 mainly on the ground that non-applicant No.1 herself has stated that she has given triple talaq to applicant No.1 in the year 2014 and she is not having any physical relationship with applicant No.1 since 2014. 9. Perusal of the DV proceedings reveals that the allegation of assault dated 25.08.2015 as well as the demand of 3 ₹ lakhs in the year 2018 is attributed to the applicants in the shared household. All these allegations are contrary to the material available on record i.e. the reply of non-applicant No.1 to the notice issued to applicant No.1 as well as the reply to the application for custody of the minor child filed by applicant No.1, before the District Court, wherein she has contended that she has divorced applicant no.1 and since 2014, she has no concern with him. She has also contended that her son is one Sheikh Arman who is not the son of applicant no.1 as she had no relation with applicant no.1 post 2014. If that is so, then the allegations made by non-applicant no.1 in the DV proceedings regarding domestic violence which are all post 2015 do not stand against the applicants, since, as per the case of non-applicant No.1 herself that she had divorced applicant no.1 in the year 2014, there exists no domestic relationship between the applicants and non-applicant 7 apl742.26.odt No.1 at the time of filing the present DV proceedings. 10. So far as the argument advanced by the learned Amicus Curiae, that the earlier application has been dismissed by this Court is concerned, that was on account of the law prevailing at the relevant time that domestic violence proceedings cannot be quashed under the inherent powers of the Court. However, in wake of the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Saurabh Kumar Tripathi (supra), wherein it has been observed that domestic proceedings can be quashed by exercising powers under Section 482, a case is made out for the same. 11. Since, the allegations made in the DV proceedings are contrary to the reply filed by non-applicant no.1 to the custody proceedings, I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicants that filing of the DV proceedings is nothing but an abuse of the process of court and therefore, it is required to be quashed. Hence, this order: i. The criminal application is allowed. ii. P.W.D.V.A. Application No.90/2022 filed by non-applicant no.1 – wife before Chief Judicial 8 apl742.26.odt Magistrate, Washim is quashed and set aside. iii. The application stands disposed of. (M.W. CHANDWANI J.) Wagh Signed by: Mr. S.R. Wagh Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 21/09/2026 19:26:46