JAVED ASLAM SHAIKH AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:41400-DB
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                           CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3626 OF 2024
                             JAVED ASLAM SHAIKH AND OTHERS
                                          VERSUS
                          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
        Mr. M. R. Wagh, Advocate for the Applicants.
        Ms. Divya Khandelwal, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
        Mr. S. P. Joshi, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
                                                          CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                                           DATE : 03/09/2026
        Per Court:
        1.    By consent of both sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of

        admission.

        2.    Heard learned counsel Mr. M. R. Wagh for the applicants, learned APP

        Mr. S. P. Joshi for respondent No.1-State and learned Counsel Ms. Divya

        Khandelwal for respondent No.2.

        3.    By way of the present application filed under Section 482 of the Code

        of Criminal Procedure, the applicants seek quashing and setting aside of FIR

        No.161 of 2023 dated 29.06.2023, registered with Nizampur Police Station,

        District Dhule, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504

        and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with

        consequential Charge-sheet No.70 of 2023 and Regular Criminal Case No.203

        of 2023, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakri,

        District Dhule.



                                                                                   1
4.    The applicants originally comprised of six persons. Applicant No.1-

Javed Aslam Shaikh is the husband of respondent No.2-Muskan Javed Shaikh.

Applicant No.2-Mumtaz Aslam Shaikh is the mother-in-law of respondent

No.2. Applicant No.3-Wasim Aslam Shaikh is her brother-in-law, applicant

No.4-Heena Wasim Shaikh is her sister-in-law, applicant No.5-Somayya

Rashid Shaikh is also her sister-in-law and applicant No.6-Dr. Zahir Shaikh is

her uncle-in-law. The marriage between applicant No.1 and respondent No.2

was solemnized on 23.12.2019 according to Muslim rites and customs. The

FIR records the alleged period of occurrence from 23.12.2019 to 29.12.2021

and was registered on 29.06.2023 at about 14.25 hours. According to

respondent No.2, initially for about one month after the marriage she was

treated properly by her matrimonial family. Thereafter, applicant Nos.1 and 2

allegedly demanded Rs.1,00,000/- from her father for purchasing a house at

Dhule. She states that she obtained Rs.30,000/- from her father and handed

over the said amount.

5.    It is further alleged that about two months thereafter applicant Nos.1

and 2 demanded an additional amount of Rs.50,000/- for purchasing a

motorcycle. On her inability to obtain the amount, she alleges that she was

abused and assaulted. As against applicant Nos.3 and 4, respondent No.2 has

alleged abuse and threats. Against applicant No.5, it is alleged that she used

to telephone applicant No.1 and instigate him against respondent No.2. A

similar allegation of instigation is made against applicant No.6. Respondent



                                                                             2
No.2 has further stated that during the matrimonial relationship she became

pregnant. In or around May 2020, when she was about five months pregnant,

applicant No.1 along with applicant No.2 allegedly sent her to her parental

home at Nizampur. She subsequently delivered a daughter on 29.09.2020.

She has alleged that after returning to the matrimonial home the ill-treatment

and abuse continued and that she ultimately returned to her parental home.

6.      The record further shows that respondent No.2 approached the Bharosa

Cell, Dhule. Her application was dated 09.05.2023 and counselling sessions

were conducted on 20.05.2023, 02.06.2023 and 21.06.2023. Thereafter, she

approached the police and the present FIR came to be registered. The

investigation was thereafter undertaken. Statements of witnesses were

recorded and, upon completion of investigation, Charge-sheet No.70 of 2023

came to be filed, resulting in registration Regular Criminal Case No.203 of

2023.

7.      Learned counsel for the applicants contend that the allegations in the

FIR are false, vague, general and omnibus. According to him, no specific date,

time or particular incident has been mentioned against applicant Nos.3 to 6

and no specific overt act is attributed to them. It is further submitted that

applicant Nos.3 to 6 are residing at different places and that they have been

implicated merely because of their relationship with applicant No.1. It is

submitted that the statements of the seven witnesses forming part of the




                                                                             3
charge-sheet do not disclose any specific role attributable to applicant Nos.3

to 6.

8.      Learned APP opposed the application submitting that the FIR discloses

cognizable offences and that the charge-sheet has been filed after

investigation. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 also opposed the

application and submitted that the allegations of matrimonial harassment and

ill-treatment require consideration by the Trial Court.

9.      This court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused

the FIR, charge-sheet and the material placed on record.

10.     Before considering the merits, it is necessary to note that the applicants

originally included applicant Nos.1 and 2. By order dated 09.12.2024, the

application came to be withdrawn insofar as applicant Nos.1 and 2 are

concerned. Therefore, the present adjudication is confined to applicant Nos.3

to 6.

11.     The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is

extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised sparingly. However, the

inherent power is available to prevent abuse of the process of law and to

secure the ends of justice. At the stage of quashing, the Court ordinarily does

not conduct a mini-trial or undertake detailed appreciation of evidence. At the

same time, the Court is required to examine whether the allegations, even if

taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, disclose the




                                                                                 4
ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused sought to be

prosecuted.

12.   In the present case, the principal allegations regarding the demand of

Rs.1,00,000/- for purchasing a house and Rs.50,000/- for purchasing a

motorcycle are directed against applicant Nos.1 and 2. The application against

those applicants has already been withdrawn. So far as applicant Nos.3 and 4

are concerned, the allegations are that they abused and threatened

respondent No.2. However, the material placed before this Court does not

disclose the date, place, circumstances or any specific incident constituting

such alleged conduct. Nor even approximately Similarly, against applicant

No.5 the allegation is that she used to telephone applicant No.1 and instigate

him against respondent No.2. The allegation does not disclose any specific

occasion, words, act or circumstance showing how the alleged conduct

constituted cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of the IPC.The

allegation against applicant No.6 is also essentially one of instigation. The

record does not disclose any specific act of assault, demand of money or other

conduct constituting cruelty attributable to applicant No.6.

13.   The mere fact that applicant Nos.3 to 6 are relatives of applicant No.1

cannot, in the absence of specific material, be sufficient to subject them to a

criminal trial. The allegations against each accused must have a factual

foundation sufficient to constitute the alleged offence. The fact that the

applicants are residing at different places is also a relevant circumstance.


                                                                              5
Applicant Nos.3 and 4 are stated to be residing at Dhule, applicant No.5 at

Faizpur, District Jalgaon and applicant No.6 at Jalgaon. This circumstance by

itself is not decisive, but when considered along with the absence of specific

allegations, it assumes significance. The Court is conscious that the

truthfulness of the allegations cannot be finally adjudicated in a proceeding

under Section 482 of the Code. Nevertheless, where the allegations are

general and omnibus and the material collected during investigation does not

disclose a specific overt act, continuation of prosecution may amount to abuse

of the process of Court.

14.   The statements of the witnesses relied upon by the prosecution also do

not, on the material placed before this Court, furnish sufficient specific

particulars of an independent criminal act attributable to applicant Nos.3 to 6.

The mere multiplication of witnesses cannot substitute the requirement of

specific material against the accused. It is therefore necessary to distinguish

the allegations which are specifically directed against applicant Nos.1 and 2

from those made against applicant Nos.3 to 6. Since the application against

applicant Nos.1 and 2 has already been withdrawn, the material concerning

their alleged acts cannot, without specific attribution, be used to sustain the

prosecution against the remaining applicants. The allegations regarding

matrimonial discord may undoubtedly require consideration where there is

specific material against an accused. However, criminal prosecution cannot be




                                                                               6
continued merely on the basis of relationship or generalized allegations when

the essential factual foundation against the concerned accused is absent.

15.   On an overall consideration of the FIR, the charge-sheet material and

the statements relied upon by the prosecution, this Court finds that the

allegations against applicant Nos.3 to 6 are substantially general and omnibus

in nature and do not disclose sufficient specific material to establish the

ingredients of the offences alleged against them. In the facts and

circumstances of the present case, permitting the criminal prosecution to

continue against applicant Nos.3 to 6 would serve no useful purpose and

would amount to abuse of the process of law. This is therefore a fit case for

exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. Accordingly, the application deserves to be allowed insofar as

applicant Nos.3 to 6 are concerned.

16.   It is clarified that the present order is confined to applicant Nos.3 to 6.

The proceedings, if any, against applicant Nos.1 and 2 are not adjudicated

upon in view of the withdrawal of the application against them.

                                      ORDER
      1. The Criminal Application is allowed.
      2. FIR No.161 of 2023 dated 29.06.2023 registered with Nizampur
      Police Station, District Dhule, for the offences punishable under
      Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian
      Penal Code, is hereby quashed and set aside insofar as applicant Nos.3
      to 6 are concerned.
      3. Consequently, Charge-sheet No.70 of 2023 and Regular Criminal
      Case No.203 of 2023 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate

                                                                                7
         First Class, Sakri, District Dhule, arising out of the aforesaid FIR, are
         hereby quashed and set aside insofar as applicant Nos.3 to 6 are
         concerned.
         4. Applicant Nos.3 to 6 shall stand discharged from the aforesaid
         criminal proceedings.
         5. It is clarified that this order shall not affect the proceedings, if any,
         against applicant Nos.1 and 2, in view of the order dated 09.12.2024
         whereby the application was withdrawn as against them.
         6. The Criminal Application stands disposed of accordingly.
         7. Fees of appointed Counsel for Respondent No. 2 is quantified at
         Rs.10,000/- to be paid by High Court Legal Aid Services Sub-
         Committee, Aurangabad.


                                                                  (R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani




                                                                                    8