Bombay High Court
Mahmad Shabir Shaikh And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 11 December, 2018
09.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
9 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.6865 OF 2017
MAHMAD SHABIR SHAIKH AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. M. B. Kolpe h/for Mr. Ingale Vivekanand
V.
APP for Respondent State: Mr. K. D. Munde
Advocate for Respondents 2 to 4: Mr. Mahesh P. Kale
CORAM : K. L. WADANE, J.
DATE : 11th December, 2018
ORDER:
1. Heard Mr. Kolpe, learned counsel appearing for the applicants Mr. Kale, learned counsel for respondent 2 to 4 and learned APP for the State.
2. The applicants, original accused have challenged the proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 under the provisions of Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violante Act. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant No.2 is father- in-law and applicant No.3 is mother-in-law of respondent No.2 and applicant No.1 is husband. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that allegations in the complaint are vague in material particulars and therefore with these vague allegations, complainant will not be 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2018 05:40:21 :::
09.odt succeeded in the proceeding therefore contininuation of such proceeding is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
3. As against this, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that there are specific allegations against the applicants, more particularly in para Nos. 4 and 5 of the complaint. On perusal of the same, it appears that marriage between applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 took place on 04.06.2001. In the meantime, there was illegal demand from the parents of respondent No.2. On perusal of para No.4 of the complaint it appears that it is alleged by respondent No.2 that on 01.01.2017, applicants Nos. 1 to 3 abused and assaulted her and demanded an amount of Rs.50,000/- for pushchair crushing/harvesting machine and thereby drove her away from the house. In the month of February, 2017, amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid to the applicants pursuant to the demand made by the applicants 1 to 3. The applicants further drove the complainant out of the house on the ground that she should bring the remaining amount.
4. So looking to the averments in the complaint allegations made against the applicants are specific allegations as to the date, time and place whereby ill-treatment was given to the respondent No.2. 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2018 05:40:21 :::
09.odt
5. Learned counsel applicants submits that applicant No.2 is old aged person and is under medical treatment. On perusal of the papers of medical treatment, it appears that applicant No.2 has undergone cataract operation and now a days such operation is minor operation and patient can be discharged within three to four hours. Therefore, it cannot be said that applicant no.2 is suffering from major illness.
6. In view of above, there is no ground to quash and set aside the complaint made by respondent No.2. There is no substance in the present application. Therefore, it is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.
(K. L. WADANE, J.) JPC 3/3 ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2018 05:40:21 :::