1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 1954 of 2010 Sandeep and ors v. State of Maharashtra and anr ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr H. N. Bhongde, Adv for applicants Mr A. T. Purohit, Advocate for respdt no.2 Coram: A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 8th July 2011 1. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR No. 216/2010 dated 4.8.2010 and charge-sheet no. 181/2010 under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered with Police Station, Ram Nagar, Chandrapur filed against all the applicants at the instance of first-informant Megha. 2. Complainant Megha (wife of applicant no.1 Sandeep) lodged oral report on 4.8.2010 with Police Station, Ram Nagar, Chandrapur that she was married with Sandeep Shingne on 27.6.2007. Initially, for a period of one year, she was treated well though he was demanding petty items from her parents. However, at the time of first Diwali after marriage though valuable items including money were given, her mother-in-law complained as to why clothes were not given to her son (applicant no.1) 2 and raised quarrel with the complainant. It is further stated in the complaint that she came to her father’s place and delivered a female child. When that fact was informed to applicant Namdeo (father-in-law) by her brother Nilesh, he cut the phone call after questioning as to why male child was not born. When the applicants were invited for naming ceremony at Chandrapur, they put a condition that if they are given Rs. 1 lakh, they would attend the function and take back complainant Megha. On 11.3.2009 when complainant Megha along with her father and female child went to Chandrapur, applications stated that if she had brought Rs. 1 lakh then only she would be given entry in the house. After this, complainant and her father were beaten up by all the applicants. 3. Police have recorded statements of Vijay and Shalini Bhingare, father and mother of complainant Megha; Nilesh and Sau Vandana, respectively brother and maternal aunt of Megha and her maternal uncle Vinod. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that applicant no.1 Sandeep had filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights against wife Megha which was allowed by judgment and order dated 6.2.2010 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Nagpur. However, complainant Megha has failed to resume the matrimonial life. Learned counsel contends that had the applicants been not interested in return of Megha to matrimonial home, applicant no.1 would not have filed such petition. 5. Be that as it may, if there is demand of dowry; physical and mental harassment to a wife at the instance of her husband and her in- laws, she is unable to go back to the matrimonial home for the reasons beyond her control. In the present case, there is material collected during 3 the investigation against the applicants showing their prima facie involvement in commission of offences under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Legitimate prosecution cannot be scuttled by invoking inherent powers vested with this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. . The power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is extraordinary, exceptional and required to be exercised in rarest of rare case. The case in hand is not a case where such extraordinary power should be exercised since the accusations made against the applicants are serious in nature. Hence, prayer made for quashing and setting aside FIR and Charge-sheet cannot be entertained and deserves to be rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants, in the alternative, prayed for transfer of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 564 of 2010 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, FC, Chandrapur to the appropriate Criminal Court at Nagpur. He submits that brother of the complainant has criminal history and in all probabilities there is danger to the life of applicants whenever they happen to go to Chandrapur court. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 opposes this alternate prayer. He submits that the applicants had lodged police report against the brother of Megha. However, police did not find any substance therein and have registered it as “NC”. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has pressed into service judgment of this Court in Jairam and ors v. State of Maharashtra and anr reported in 2006 All MR (Cri) 2466. In this case, the Court has held that if the wife is tortured at matrimonial home and compelled to go to her parental house, both the Courts where matrimonial and parental houses are located, have jurisdiction. 4 7. In view of the fact that the applicants had already made complaint against brother of wife Megha and the police have found no force in it, there is no merit in the claim of applicants that their life is endangered at Chandrapur. Apart from this, if in future, applicants feel apprehensive, remedy of police report is still open to them. Prayer for transfer made in the alternative stands rejected. 8. Application fails on both the counts and is accordingly rejected. Judge. hsj