Bombay High Court
Matten Ahamed Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 9 October, 2019
Bench: T.V. Nalawade, R.G. Avachat
1 Cr WP 1057-1060 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Criminal Writ Petition No.1057 of 2019
Iqbal Anees Sayyed. .. Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
And Another. .. Respondents.
----
With
Criminal Writ Petition No.1058 of 2019
Zakiya Iqbal Sayyed. .. Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
And Another. .. Respondents.
----
With
Criminal Writ Petition No.1059 of 2019
Mateen Ahamed Shaikh. .. Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
And Another. .. Respondents.
----
::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 23:01:51 :::
2 Cr WP 1057-1060 of 2019
With
Criminal Writ Petition No.1060 of 2019
Mohsin Iqbal Sayyed. .. Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
And Another. .. Respondents.
----
Shri. R.C. Bora, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Smt. V.N. Jadhav-Patil, Additional Public Prosecutor, for
respondent No.1.
Shri. Syed Tauseef Yasin, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
----
Coram: T.V. NALAWADE &
R.G. AVACHAT, JJ.
Date: 9th OCTOBER 2019
ORDER:
1) Against the petitioners of all the four proceedings, RCC No.10/2018 is pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Beed and it is for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 420, 504, 506, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner from proceeding No.1060/2019 is the husband of the informant ::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 23:01:51 ::: 3 Cr WP 1057-1060 of 2019 and other accused are his close relatives like mother and father, sister and husband of the sister. etc. They had come to this Court in the past for the relief of quashing of the case. As the charge sheet was filed liberty was given to them to file application for discharge and the proceeding came to be disposed of as dismissed (Cri. Writ Petition No.219/2019) by order dated 26-2-2019. Then, applications at Exhibits 33 to 36 were filed as separate application for relief of discharge.
2) The trial court has considered the specific allegations made as against all these petitioners. There are allegations against the husband and the mother of the husband that they were assaulting her by saying that she was haunted by ghost. Specific instances in which the husband and his mother had assaulted her are mentioned. She has made allegation that on 5-8-2017 her husband and her in laws took her to one Advocate and there she was made to sign some documents. It is contended that on 12-8-2017 she was driven out of matrimonial house by saying that there was no relationship between the husband and the informant and the husband had given ::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 23:01:51 ::: 4 Cr WP 1057-1060 of 2019 talaq to her. There are statements of the witnesses on the ill-treatment given to the informant and there is allegation that she was deceived and her signatures were obtained on some documents. There is record to show that criminal proceeding was filed against him in the past by Swapnaja Mehta, alleged second wife of accused No.1. In that case they got acquittal as there was compromise and no evidence was given by the informant in that case.
3) The trial court has considered the principles which need to be considered at the time of deciding application filed for discharge. So many cases were cited before the trial court and the trial court has come to the conclusion that there is sufficient material to make out the case for framing charge for those offences. Relevant sections are also considered separately by the trial court. Thus, there is judicial order of the trial court to the effect that there is sufficient evidence for framing the charge for aforesaid offences. This Court also has gone through the contentions of the informant and there are allegations of aforesaid nature. The petitioners themselves are trying to use the document like "Khulanama" to show that the ::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 23:01:51 ::: 5 Cr WP 1057-1060 of 2019 documents were signed voluntarily by the informant and they would examine the Notary Public before whom the documents were notarized. This kind of defence cannot be considered at this stage. The marriage had taken place on 1-9-2007 and this couple is having a daughter out of this wedlock aged about 9 years. The document does not show that any arrangement was made for maintenance of either the wife or the daughter. On the contrary, it is mentioned that Iddat period maintenance was not pressed. Responsibility of the daughter was to be taken by the father and to that extent only the liability was taken by the husband. These circumstances need to be considered at the time of considering the contentions that she was deceived and her signatures were obtained on some documents in the office of one Advocate.
4) The petitioners did not file revisions against the aforesaid order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and they directly filed the present proceedings. Learned counsel for these petitioners has placed reliance on observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported as Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 2016 SC 4245) ::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 23:01:51 ::: 6 Cr WP 1057-1060 of 2019 and submitted that though revision can be filed it is open to the aggrieved party to directly come for relief of quashing by filing proceedings under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5) It is true that in some cases when the material available with the accused which cannot be doubted can be accepted and the relief can be given. But the present case is not of that kind. When there is serious allegations in respect of Khulanama etc. prepared and in the past against the husband there was a case filed by his other wife, this Court holds that it is not possible to use extraordinary jurisdiction and grant the relief to the petitioners. As there is sufficient material they need to face the trial of the case. Unless that is done there will be no opportunity to the wife to prove the serious allegations which she has made against the petitioners. In the result, all the petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(R.G. AVACHAT, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)
rsl
::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 23:01:51 :::