MATHLOOB ABDUL GAFOOR QURESHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Criminal Application Nos. 861/98 with 945/98, 862/98, 863/98, 864/98 with 948/98, 865/98 with 949/98, 872/98, 873/98, 946/98, 944/98 with 947/98. The facts in all the applications are common. For the purpose of this order, the facts have been taken from Criminal Application No. 861/98.

(2.) ONE Abdul Gafoor Qureshi, the father of the applicant died some time in 1962. He died leaving behind his wife, i. e. the mother of the applicant and three sons i. e. the applicant, his brother Bakshish and one Mohammed Ayub Qureshi. The said Mohammed Ayub Qureshi was the eldest brother. After the death of the father all the three brothers were instrumental in developing the family business of beef stalls at various places in the city of Bombay. The said stalls were opened at the Municipal market and also in private properties. All the three brothers also acquired a number of properties including bunglow known as Gafoor Mahal Bunglow. The mother is a pardanaseen lady, who does not move out of the house and is stated to be 77 years old. Mohammed Ayub Qureshi, the eldest brother was mainly looking after the financial matters and the corporation papers. The actual business was carried on by the applicant and his brother Bakshish. Mohammed Ayub Qureshi was not keeping good health in the latter part of his life. He therefore, wanted to have a family settlement and division of the property during his life time. A family settlement, therefore, was drawn up. This is said to be signed by the mother and all the three brothers. The other documents necessary for transferring the various properties were signed by all the parties. Mohammed Ayub Qureshi died on 20th May, 1996. After the death of Mohammed Ayub Qureshi, the applicants uncle and also the married sister started interfering with the family. They induced the mother to sell away some of the properties which stood in her name though the same belonged to the family and had been divided in the family arrangement. The applicants brother Bakshish, therefore, filed a suit on the Original Side of the High Court, Bombay, being Suit No. 4484 of 1996. Notice of Motion was taken out in the said suit for interim reliefs which was granted on 6th December, 1996. The following order was passed : the plaintiff and the defendants except defendant No. 1 heavily rely upon the family arrangement dated 30th April 1996 under which the entire estate is agreed to be divided in the manner indicated and provided therein. On enquiry Mr. Samdani produced the original of the Family Arrangement. The same is even attested by a Notary. On behalf of 1st defendant Mr. Rajabaly stated that the 1st defendant who was present in Court was not admitting her signature. Mr. Rajabaly on behalf of the 1st defendant stated that as far as Item No. 9 of Schedule No. 4 of Exh. A i. e. the Family Arrangement is concerned, the same has been sold. While filing the affidavit in reply the 1st defendant is directed to give particulars of this transaction. Mr. Samdani on the other hand states that in fact the plaintiffs is in possession of the same. In view of the fact that all other beneficiaries under the family arrangement except defendant No. 1 are standing by the Family Arrangement, it is a fit case in which ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (a) is granted. Mr. Samdani on behalf of the plaintiff also undertakes that the plaintiff shall also stand by the family arrangement. In short, it is ordered that status quo as of today as reflected in the Family Arrangement to be maintained till the Notice of Motion is disposed of. "

(3.) APART from the civil litigation, criminal complaints also came to be filed against the applicants which are pending in different courts in Bombay. Anticipatory bail applications were taken out in all the complaints. They have all been disposed of by a common order by the learned Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai by his order dated 4th March, 1998.