ANISA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,
LAWS(BOM)-2020-3-286
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on March 03,2020

ANISA BEGUM Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, Respondents

JUDGEMENT

T.V.NALAWADE, J. - (1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal.
(2.) The present proceeding is filed for relief of quashing of FIR No.4376 of 2019, registered with Jinsi Police Station, District Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 387 , 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Other two reliefs were also claimed in respect of other two crimes for seeking direction to make investigation through other agency, but those reliefs were not pressed as this Court expressed that separate proceedings ought to have been filed for those reliefs.
(3.) The crime is registered on the basis of report given by Respondent No.7, Feroz Ahmed Khan. Report was given to police on 22nd November, 2019 in respect of incident dated 15th August, 2018. It is contended by the informant that he is owner of house constructed on plot Nos.4 and 7, which consist of three rooms as this property was given to him under Hiba by his relative Gaffar Khan. It is his contention that all the Petitioners were living in this house on rent basis prior to Hiba and so he was asking them to vacate the house. It is contended that they had requested him to give them time of one year as construction of their house was going on and they had promised to vacate the house. It is contended that due to such promise, on 15th August, 2018, he visited the house and requested the Petitioners to vacate the house but they refused to vacate the house and they demanded Rs.4,00,000/- for vacating the house. It is contended that as the informant is owner of the house, there was no question of giving Rs.4,00,000/- to the persons like Petitioners and he felt that the Petitioners are asking him to give ransom of Rs.4,00,000/-. According to him, threat of life was given and threat of involving the informant in false case was also given. It is contended that in subsequent incident dated 30th May, 2019, when he and his wife Ayesha Begum had gone there to convince the Petitioners to vacate the house, they said that they had with them some documents, which may be forged and on that basis they would claim ownership right and so he should give them money. It is contended that they did not give rent and they were asking for Rs.4,00,000/-. So, report came to be given in respect of two incidents of 22nd November, 2019.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.