SALMAN KHAN BISMILLAH KHAN PATHAN AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:42415-DB
                                                                        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          applicant no. 1 stood disposed of as withdrawn by this Court’s order dated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



                                              Page 1 of 4
                                                             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


                                  Page 2 of 4
                                                             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



                                  Page 3 of 4
                                                              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




                                      Page 4 of 4