SHAIKH JUBER SHAIKH GAFFUR AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:42308-DB




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 172 OF 2022

           1.    Shaikh Juber S/o Shaikh Gaffur (Husband of Informant)
           2.    Shaikh Gaffur S/o Shaikh Chotu (Father-in-Law)
           3.    Shaikh Alim S/o Shaikh Gaffur (Brother-in-Law)
           4.    Shaikh Naim S/o Shaikh Gaffur (Brother-in-Law)
           5.    Shaikh Najim S/o Shaikh Gaffur (Brother-in-Law)
           6.    Shaikh Nafisabi W/o Alim Khan (Sister-in-law)
           7.    Shaikh Alim S/o Majid Khan Pathan (Husband of Petitioner No.6)
           8.    Sayyed Rukhyya W/o Abrar Ali (Sister-in-law)

                                                                    ……..……..Petitioners
                        Versus

           1.    The State of Maharashtra
           2.    Shaikh Seema W/o Shaikh Juber (Informant)

                                                                     ……..… Respondents

           Mr. Shaikh Altmash h/f Mr. R.M. Shaikh, Advocate for the Applicants
           (through V.C.)
           Mr. A. R. Kale, APP for the Respondent/State
           Mr. Pathan. S. Khan, Advocate for the Respondent No.2

                                                     CORAM      : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                                     DATED      : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2026

           PER COURT :-

           1.    After hearing learned Counsels for both sides and when this Court has

           shown its disinclination to grant relief to Petitioner No. 1/Husband of

           Informant, Learned Counsel for Petitioner, on instructions, seeks withdrawal

           of Petition qua this Petitioner No.1. In this view, proceedings stands dismissed


           Crim.Wp.172/2023.odt                                                   1 of 8
as withdrawn against petitioner No.1.


2.    This application filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 the present Applicants seek quashment FIR in Crime No. 0531/2021

register with City Chowk Police Station, Dist. Aurangabad for offence

punishable u/s. 498-A, 323, 504, 506, r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and under

section 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, so also seeks quashment of Chargesheet

No. 20/2022 filed in RCC No. 257/2022 and Order dated 07/03/2022 for

issuance of process passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad.


3.    It's   the   case   of   the   prosecution   that   marriage    of       the

Informant/Respondent No. 2 was solemnized with the Petitioner No.1-

Husband (a Police Constable) on 15/01/2017 as per Muslim rites and

customs, out of which a child was born. It's alleged that the family of the

informant disbursed ₹5,50,000/- towards wedding expenses, household

articles, and ornaments at the time of marriage. Shortly thereafter, the

Petitioner No.1 along with the present petitioner Nos. 2 to 8 allegedly

subjected the Informant to physical, mental, and emotional cruelty over trivial

matters, forcing her into domestic labor and keeping her starved. The

Petitioners unlawfully demanded a sum of ₹7,00,000/- to purchase a

residential plot in Aurangabad and ousted her from the matrimonial home.


Crim.Wp.172/2023.odt                                                  2 of 8
Though the Informant’s father paid ₹3,00,000/- (₹1,50,000/- cash and

ornaments worth ₹1,50,000/-) to partially satisfy the demand. It's further

alleged that Petitioner Nos. 2 to 8 resumed ill-treating her, with the Petitioner

No.1 frequently beating her using a police belt, shoes, and a stick, locking her

inside the house, threatening her with his service rifle, and neglecting the

basic medical needs of their minor child.


4.    Following physical assaults, the Informant was forced to take shelter at

her parental home on 02/04/2021. On 14/04/2021, the Petitioner No.1

allegedly arrived at her parental residence in police uniform carrying a stick,

aggressively attempted to take the minor child, assaulted the informants

father and brother when they attempted to mediate, and threatened to

commit suicide after leaving a note falsely framing her family. Thereafter,

Petitioner No.1 subsequently filed a false counter-complaint (N.C. No.

235/2021) against her relatives at City Chowk Police Station. The Informant,

aggrieved by the persistent physical, mental, and financial torture spanning

from 15/01/2017 to 14/04/2021, the present crime was lodged and

Chargesheet came to be filed.


5.    The learned council for the petitioners summit that this is a case of

deliberate implication, so also there is delay of 7 months in lodging the first


Crim.Wp.172/2023.odt                                                    3 of 8
information report. To attract the allegations of petitioners physically and

mentally harassing the Informant as alleged, the prosecution has to show that

that is sufficient evidence on record in order to indicate that the informant

has suffered physical and mental abuse at the instance of present Petitioners.

He drew the attention of the court to the FIR and charge sheet on record to

contend that the allegations against the applicant are vague and on bases of

such omnibus and vague allegations the applicant cannot be tried. It is further

submitted that the informant in order to cause harassment have filed multiple

proceedings and reports against Petitioners, so also proceedings for restitution

of conjugal rights was filed by the Petitioner No.1 which shows his genuinity

to peacefully reside with informant. He further submits that it cannot be said

that elements of the offence alleged against the present applicants are

fulfilled.


6.     Learned APP and Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that

the application for quashing deserves to be dismissed, as the FIR clearly shows

prima facie case of cruelty under Section 498A of IPC being made out so also

perusal of investigation papers clearly show unlawful demands of dowry

being made. The attention of the court is drawn to evidence on record to

contend that there are multiple proceedings filed against present Petitioner



Crim.Wp.172/2023.odt                                                   4 of 8
No.1 which shows the genuinity of proceedings and complicity of the Present

Petitioners in causing the acts alleged against them. It is further argued that

claim of some Petitioners living separately does not exonerate them from the

offence, as they actively acted together causing cruelty, so also the statements

of witnesses recorded indicate harassment caused are sufficient to implicate

the present Petitioners for offence alleged.


7.    It is undisputed fact that the marriage between informant/Respondent

No.2 and petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 15/01/2017 as per Muslim rites

and customs and a child is born out of the said wedlock. The respondent No.2

along with her child left matrimonial Home on 02/04/2021 and started

residing with her parents. Thereafter, on 03/11/2021, informant/Respondent

No.2 registered a FIR against the present Petitioners. Thus, this indicates that

there is a crack in conjugal bond between respondent No. 2, and Petitioner

No.1-Husband, so also there is a rift in familial relations between Informant

and Petitioner Nos.2 to 8 some time after solemnisation of marriage of

Respondent No.2 and Petitioner No.1 and it's further evident from the record

that for period of 7 months prior to lodging of report, the Respondent No.2 is

residing separately.


8.    Prima facie perusal of the record shows that all of the petitioner Nos. 2


Crim.Wp.172/2023.odt                                                   5 of 8
to 8 are residing separately distant from the matrimonial home of Respondent

No.2 and there are no specific, but generalized, and omnibus allegations

against them of causing mental and physical harassment, instigating the

Petitioner No.1, so also demand dowry from the Respondent No. 2 when they

visited matrimonial home.


9.    At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the judgments of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10

SCC 741, Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667,

Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599 which states that

relatives which are residing separately cannot be forced to face trial under

Section 498A of IPC based on vague and sweeping allegations.


10.   In so far as statements of witnesses recorded are concerned, the same is

not sufficient to implicate the petitioners and hold them culpable for acts

alleged. The allegations made against the present petitioners are purely

Omnibus and the same cannot sustain as they lack specific overt acts and in

absence of evidence of physical and mental cruelty being caused to the

Respondent No.2., they cannot be made to face rigours of trial.


11.   It is well-settled that a criminal prosecution under Section 498A of the



Crim.Wp.172/2023.odt                                                 6 of 8
IPC cannot be sustained against family members on the basis of general and

uncorroborated assertions without concrete details regarding time, place, and

individual participation.


12.   Bare perusal of the investigation papers indicate that present petitioners

are brought into sweep of this crime in order to cause harassment and

distress. Prima facie this Court is of the view that involvement of the present

petitioners is done with malafide intentions only because they are related to

Petitioner No.1/Husband of the informant. On the basis of such allegations, if

the present Applicants are called upon to undergo rigors of trial, it would lead

to miscarriage of Justice. Therefore, the aforesaid accusations, even if taken at

face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute any offence.


13.   It is evident from the above discussion, that the applicants being

relatives of the Applicant No.1/Husband have been roped in under Section

498A IPC without specific allegations, purely to settle personal scores.

Allowing such proceedings to continue would amount to abuse of the court

process. Consequently, the FIR and consequential proceedings against the

Petitioners are liable to be quashed and set aside.


14.   In view of above, application qua Applicant No. 2 to 8 stands allowed

in terms of prayer clauses “B”, “B-A” and “B-B”.

Crim.Wp.172/2023.odt                                                    7 of 8
                       ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

      Malani




Crim.Wp.172/2023.odt                  8 of 8