Sadeya Mahek Shaikh And ORS v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

Gokhale

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1380 OF 2025 Sadeya Mahek Shaikh & Ors.

..Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

..Respondents __________ Mr. Subir Sarkar a/w. Sumit Erande i/b. Tanmay Karmarkar for Petitioners.

Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP a/w. Shahaji Shinde 'B' Panel counsel for State/Respondent.

__________ CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & S. M. MODAK, JJ.

DATE : 24 MARCH 2025 PC :

1.

Leave to amend to correct the case number in the prayer clause. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2.

This is a petition for quashing of the F.I.R. registered vide C.R.No.989 of 2023 at Nagpada police station, on 14.12.2023, under sections 498-A, 377, 323, 504 and 506 of the I.P.C.; which is culminated in Case No.PW/1519/2024 pending before the J.M.F.C., 69th Court, Sewree, Mumbai.

Digitally signed by VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Date:

2025.03.27 11:24:22 +0530 VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE

3.

The F.I.R. was lodged by the Respondent No.2. The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are her sisters in law and the Petitioner No.3 is her father in law. The F.I.R. mentions that, she got married with her husband Maaz Shaikh on 10.12.2021. Mr. Sarkar invited our attention to the F.I.R. wherein most of the allegations are mainly against the husband and the mother in law. There are allegations against the sisters in law that they were asking her to do the household work. There is a reference of an incident dated 30.10.2023 when the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 had held her and her mother in law had slapped her. On one occasion, she was not allowed to enter her matrimonial house.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the complaint given by the Petitioner No.3 before the police authorities on 06.09.2023 wherein it is mentioned that, he had even made an arrangement for a rented house for the Respondent No.2 and her husband to stay separately. But in spite of that the petitioners' family was harassed. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submitted that, as a counter blast to this background, this false F.I.R. is lodged against the petitioners in

particular.

5.

Considering these submissions, it is necessary to hear the Respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made out a case for grant of ad-interim relief.

6.

Hence, the following order:

O R D E R

i) Issue Notice to the Respondent No.2, returnable on 30.06.2025.

ii) Till then, the Trial Court shall not proceed against the petitioners herein.

iii) It is made clear that this order is restricted to the Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 only.

iv) Stand over to 30.06.2025.

(S. M. MODAK, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)