SAYEDA AAYESHA ZAHRA D/O ABDUL ALI HAFEEZAND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                                     9-IA-567-2026 (CR).odt




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                    CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1456 OF 2025
                                                     a/w
                                  CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 567 OF 2026
                                                     IN
SHAILAJA
SHRIKANT                            CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1456 OF 2025
HALKUDE
Digitally signed by
SHAILAJA SHRIKANT     1]         Miss. Sayeda Aayesha Zahra                      ]
HALKUDE
Date: 2026.09.29
11:39:46 +0530
                                 D/o Abdul Ali Hafeez                            ]
                                 An adult, aged about 48 years, Indian,          ]
                                 Occupation : Service, Inhabitant of Bengaluru   ]
                                 Having permanent address at 16/1,               ]
                                 Achyutaraya Mudaliar AM,                        ]
                                 Road, Fraser Town, Bangalore,                   ]
                                 Bengaluru City, Karnataka,                      ]
                                 Presently residing at Reading,                  ]
                                 United Kingdom for job purposes.                ]

                      2.         Mrs. Syeda Zahara wd/o Syed Abdul Ali Hafeez    ]
                                 An adult, aged about 76 years, Indian,          ]
                                 Occu: Housewife, Inhabitant of Bengaluru        ]
                                 Having permanent address at 16/1,               ]
                                 Achyutaraya Mudaliar AM,                        ]
                                 Road, Fraser Town, Bangalore,                   ]
                                 Bengaluru City, Karnataka,                      ]   Petitioners

                                              versus

                      1.         The State of Maharashtra                        ]
                                 (At the instance of the P.I. Sadar Bazar        ]
                                 Police Station, Solapur, Maharashtra,           ]
                                 Vide C.R. No.226/2021)                          ]

                      2.         Mrs. Saima Yasmeen Syed Qutbuddin               ]
                                 Bakhtair Ali, wife of Syed Qutbuddin.           ]
                                 An adult, aged about 39 years, Indian,          ]
                                 Occu: Not known, Inhabitant of Solapur,         ]
                                 Residing at C/o N.N. Munshi, 159/1,             ]
                                 Railway Lines, Solapur- 413 001.                ]   Respondents
                      Shailaja                                                                 Page 1 of 9
                                                                 9-IA-567-2026 (CR).odt



                                 .....
Ms. N. S. Baig (through V.C.) a/w Mr. Aditya S. Ghatge, Advocates for
Petitioners.

Ms. Priyanka Rane, A.P.P, for Respondent No.1 – State.
                                    .....

                                 CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
                                 DATE  : SEPTEMBER 24, 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT :


1.           Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned

Advocate for the Petitioners as well as the learned A.P.P., for Respondent

No.1 – State.

2.           Despite service of notice, Respondent No.2 remained absent. It

seems that Respondent No. 2 is not interested in prosecuting the Petition.

3.           The Petitioners invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court to

quash the First Information Report (for short “F.I.R”) bearing No.226 of

2021 registered on 8th April, 2021 with Sadar Bazar Police Station, District

Solapur for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 417, 504 r/w 34 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C.”) and filing of the Charge-

sheet pursuant to the said F.I.R, which was numbered as Regular Criminal

Case No.892 of 2022 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Solapur.



Shailaja                                                                   Page 2 of 9
                                                                   9-IA-567-2026 (CR).odt



FACTUAL MATRIX:




4.           The Petitioners are the sister-in-law and mother-in-law,

respectively, of Respondent No. 2. The marriage of Respondent No. 2 was

solemnised with Accused No.1, namely, Syed Qutbuddin Bakhtiyar Ali, on

21st September 2014. After the marriage, Accused No. 1, who was employed

as an Engineer with a multinational firm in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, took

Respondent No. 2 to Saudi Arabia on 2 nd August 2015. Respondent No.2

resided there with her husband until November 2017. Thereafter, she returned

to India and resided with her in-laws till December 2017. In December 2017,

Respondent No. 2 left her matrimonial home and went to her parental home.

Since then, she has been residing there.

5.           The allegations against the Petitioners are that only “they used

to taunt Respondent No. 2 on the ground that she is unable to conceive/she is

barren. It is further alleged that accused No.1 - Syed Qutbuddin Bakhtiyar

Ali, husband of Respondent No. 2, was impotent and, therefore, incapable of

establishing a physical relationship with her. It is further alleged that the in-

laws concealed this fact from her at the time of marriage and that, after

gaining knowledge, she lodged the report.

6.           Pursuant to the said report, investigation was conducted and,

upon completion thereof, a charge-sheet came to be filed before the learned
Shailaja                                                                     Page 3 of 9
                                                                    9-IA-567-2026 (CR).odt



Trial Court. Aggrieved by the said report and charge-sheet, the Petitioners

have preferred the present Writ Petition.

7.           Learned Advocate for the Petitioners vehemently contended that

the allegations against the Petitioners are vague, omnibus and general in

nature, with no specific role attributed to them in the F.I.R. The allegations

are that they were taunting her by calling her barren and concealing the fact

that her husband was impotent at the time of marriage. She submitted that

such allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not constitute the

ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. She

therefore urged that the F.I.R. and the charge-sheet, insofar as the Petitioners

are concerned, be quashed and set aside.

8.           On the contrary, Ms. Rane, learned A.P.P. for Respondent No.1–

State, strenuously opposed the Petition, contending that specific allegations

have been levelled against the Petitioners that they subjected Respondent

No.2 to cruelty by taunting her as barren and by concealing the fact that her

husband - Accused No.1–Syed Qutbuddin Bakhtiyar Ali, was impotent and

incapable of establishing physical relations with her. She, therefore,

submitted that the ingredients of Section 498-A of the I.P.C. are attracted

against the Petitioners and urged that the Petition be dismissed.

9.           Despite service of notice, no one appears for Respondent No. 2

either in the Court Hall or through Video Conferencing mode. It seems that
Shailaja                                                                      Page 4 of 9
                                                                   9-IA-567-2026 (CR).odt



Respondent No. 2 is not interested in prosecuting the Petition and, therefore,

she remained absent.

10.          Having heard the rival contentions of the parties and having

gone through the record, prima facie, it appears that the allegations against

the Petitioners are vague, omnibus and general in nature. The F.I.R. does not

attribute any specific role to the Petitioners, nor does it explain what they did

or how they could be held liable for the alleged offence. The only allegations

appearing in the FIR against the Petitioners are that they used to taunt her by

calling her barren and quarrelled with her over trivial reasons. Learned A.P.P.

has failed to point out any other allegations against the Petitioners which

would constitute the necessary ingredients of Section 498-A of the I.P.C.

11.          Apart from the above, the F.I.R. does not disclose the date, time,

place or manner in which Respondent No. 2 was allegedly harassed at the

hands of the Petitioners. The charge-sheet is also conspicuously silent on this

point. Thus, the allegations against the Petitioners are neither concrete nor

precise. It is further pertinent to note that Respondent No. 2 resided with her

husband from August 2015 to November 2017. Thereafter, from December

2017, she was residing with her parents. Despite the same, she did not lodge

any complaint against the Petitioners until April 2021. No explanation or

reason for lodging the F.I.R. belatedly has been brought on record.



Shailaja                                                                     Page 5 of 9
                                                                                     9-IA-567-2026 (CR).odt



12.                   Having considered the controversy in question, it would be

appropriate to refer to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the following judgments;


           (i)        Geeta Mehrotra and another versus State of U.P. and another1,
           (ii)       Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others versus State of Bihar
                            and others,2
           (iii)      Dara Lakshmi Narayana & others versus State of Telangana &
                            Another,3


13.                   In Geeta Mehrotra (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

categorically observed that:

                 "if the contents of the first information report did not disclose
                 specific allegations against the brother and sister of the
                 complainant's husband to make them liable, for bickering between
                 non- applicant No. 2 and her husband, except the casual reference
                 of their names, it would not be just to direct them to go through the
                 protracting procedure, so also by merely making the general
                 allegation that they were involved for physical and mental torture
                 of the complainant without any allegation of their active
                 involvement or mentioning the single incident against them as also
                 the fact as to how they could be motivated the demand of dowry
                 when they are only related to husband as brother or sister, and
                 therefore, quashed the proceedings against them”.


                                                                (Emphasis supplied)



1     2012 (10) SCC 741
2     (2022) 6 SCC 599
3     2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682




Shailaja                                                                                       Page 6 of 9
                                                                             9-IA-567-2026 (CR).odt



14.         In addition, in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others, (supra), the

Hon’ble Apex Court has held that:

              "The Courts should be careful in the proceedings against
              the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial
              disputes and dowry deaths and must keep in mind that
              relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the
              basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of
              their involvement in the crime are made out."

              It is further observed that "the ultimate object of justice is
              to find out the truth, punish the guilty, and protect the
              innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in the
              majority of these complaints. The tendency to implicate the
              husband and all his inmate's/immediate relations is also
              not uncommon. At times, even in the conclusions of a
              criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The
              courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing
              with these complaints and must consider pragmatic
              realities while dealing with matrimonial cases. The
              allegations of the harassment of the husband's close
              relations, who had been living in different cities and never
              visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant
              resided, would have an entirely different complexion. The
              allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinised
              with great care and circumspection."

15.         The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi

Narayana & others (supra), after considering the parameters laid down in the

decision in "Bhajanlal's Case" and other various decisions of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, has observed that:

              "A mere reference to the names of family members in a
              criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute,
              without specific allegations indicating their active
              involvement, should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-
              recognized fact, borne out of judicial experience, that
              there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of
              the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of
              matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping
              accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or
              particularised allegations cannot form the basis for
              criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in
Shailaja                                                                               Page 7 of 9
                                                                               9-IA-567-2026 (CR).odt



                    such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the
                    legal process and avoid unnecessarily harassing innocent
                    family members.

                                                     (Emphasis Supplied)


16.               Having considered the above discussion and the law laid down

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in my view, it would not be appropriate to

continue the proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court against the

Petitioners. Continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the

process of law and would not serve the ends of justice. Therefore, in exercise

of powers under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita/ 482 of the Cr. P.

C., it would be appropriate to quash and set aside the F.I.R. as well as the

proceedings pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solapur,

being R.C.C. No.892 of 2022, qua the Petitioners.

17.               In the result, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b)

and (c), which read thus;

           b)    This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR

           bearing C.R. No. C.R. no. I-226/2021 registered at Sadar Bazar

           Police Station, Dist. Sholapur, and           charge sheet filed in

           proceedings numbered as R.C.C. no. 892/2022 and is pending

           before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solapur, against the

           present Petitioners for allegedly having committed the offences

           punishable under sections 498-A, 417, 504, r/w. 34 of Indian Penal

Shailaja                                                                                 Page 8 of 9
                                                                      9-IA-567-2026 (CR).odt



           Code and also be pleased to quash and set aside the consequent

           proceedings arising from the said C.R.

           c)    This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the

           criminal proceedings numbered as R.C.C. no. 892/2022 and

           pending before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solapur against

           the present Petitioners.

18.                The Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.

19.                Inform the concerned court accordingly.

20.                The Petition is disposed of.

21.                In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, the Interim

Application does not survive and hence stands disposed of.



                                                        (ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)




Shailaja                                                                        Page 9 of 9