Mehboob Latif Shaikh And ANR v. Almas Mehboob Shaikh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2628 OF 2016 Mehboob Latif Shaikh & others ...

APPLICANTS

VERSUS

Almas Mehboob Shaikh ...

RESPONDENT .....

Shri A.A. Khan, Advocate for applicants .....

CORAM:

A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.

DATED:

18th July, 2016.

ORAL ORDER :

1.

Heard counsel for the applicants. The present application is filed seeking orders to quash Criminal Misc. Application No.450/2015 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmednagar. it is stated that, the proceedings have been filed by the respondent (original complainant) under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The learned counsel raised grounds that, firstly there was delay, because as per the respondent, she was driven out in July 2014, but the proceedings were filed only on 24.4.2015. It is further stated that, the respondent has filed an F.I.R. at Mumbai and in the said F.I.R., the respondent claimed that, she herself left the matrimonial home. According to him, this is contrary to what the

respondent claimed in para 7 of the Misc. Application No.450/2015, where it is mentioned that she was driven out. 2.

Another point raised by the learned counsel is that, in the proceedings pending in the trial Court, the respondent and her husband entered into a compromise as at Exh.19, in which the respondent had agreed that the husband and wife will go and start living together and if there is no dispute between them, the petition would be withdrawn within a month. Counsel says that, the respondent stayed with the husband for about three months and backed out of the compromise only subsequently on 14.3.2016 when she filed application Exh.20.

3.

It is further argued that, the respondent even filed affidavit in the Criminal proceedings, in which the concerned F.I.R. has been filed. Copy of the affidavit is filed at Exhibit B. Counsel says that, in Exhibit D, the respondent accepted that, she has gone to live with the husband and that she would be withdrawing the case filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

4.

I have gone through the material filed and considered the documents which have been referred by the learned counsel. 5.

I do not find substance in the submissions. I do not think that only because the wife immediately after separation,

did not run up to the Court to file case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the delay should be held out against her. Again the documents rather show that the wife has tried to adjust with the husband, but the effort has not succeeded. Copy of Exh.20 filed on record shows that, the respondent claimed that, she has made effort to compromise, however, the respondents (i.e. the present applicants) are not giving positive response. She added that, she was still being tortured as before. As regards affidavit, copy of which has been filed, the learned counsel fairly accepts that the criminal proceedings filed at Mimbai are still pending and rather charge sheet has been filed in the matter.

6.

Looking to the above, I do not find that there is any reason to entertain this Criminal Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so as to interfere in the proceedings which are pending in the trial Court. There is no substance in the Criminal Application. The application is rejected.

(A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.) fmp/cri2628.16