1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2008 OF 2009 1. Asha D/o.Narayan Pawar, Age-27 years, Occu-Household, R/o.Near Water Supply Office, Akole, Tq. Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar 2. Narayan S/o.Tukaram Pawar, Age-48 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Near Water Supply Office, Akole, Tq.Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar 3. Maya w/o.Narayan Pawar, Age-45 years, Occu-Household, R/o.Near Water Supply Office, Akole, Tq.Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station, Shevgaon, Tq.Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. Jyoti W/o.Arun Shinde, Age-25 years, Occu-Household, C/o.Natha K.Kardak, R/o.Ram Nagar, Nevasa Road, Tq.Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar RESPONDENTS Mr.R.V.Gore, learned counsel for applicants. Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned APP for respondent no.1 Mr.R.K.Temkar, learned counsel for respondent no.2 (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 01/12/2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A.V.Potdar, J.) 1. By the present application, the applicants have prayed to quash the FIR as well as the proceeding in connection with RCC No. 48/2009 on the file of J.M.F.C. Shevgaon. 2. Rule. 3. Rule made returnable forthwith. 4. By consent of the parties, heard this matter finally at the stage of admission. 5. This application came to be filed for quashing of the proceeding in connection with RCC No.48/2009 on the file of J.M.F.C. Shevgaon in connection with an offence punishable u/s. 498, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC as there are allegations in the complaint in para no.2 that the present applicant is the bigamist wife of Arun Baburao Shinde and the complaint was lodged by the second respondent, who is claimed to be the legally wedded wife of the said Arun. It is alleged in the said complaint that the said Arun in contravention of the legal provisions, have contracted the marriage with the applicant herein and the applicant no.2 is the father of this applicant. At the time of marriage, the first marriage of the said Arun was in subsistence. Relying on these statements in the complaint, it is urged before the Court that in view of the view taken by this Bench in the matter of Sangita versus Yashodhara, reported in 2008(3), Bombay Criminal 3 Cases, 770 wherein it is held that for the offence u/s. 498-A r/w. 34 of IPC, the accused to be arrayed in such type of offence are the husband and relatives of husband. As the second wife is not coming under the ambit of relative of husband, she can not be arrayed as an accused in the offence u/s. 498-A of IPC. 6. In view of the facts stated in the complaint, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent is fair enough to accept the view taken by the Nagpur Bench and also in view of the facts disclosed in the complaint that the first applicant is the bigamous second wife of Arun and the applicant no.2 is the father of applicant no.1. In view of the settled position, as discussed in the ruling cited supra, the submissions across the bar of advocate for applicant to be accepted. In the premise, the proceeding in RCC No.48/2009 pending on the file of J.M.F.C. Shevgaon is liable to be quashed and set aside so far as these applicants are concerned, and accordingly proceeding in RCC No.48/2009 is quashed and set aside. 7. Rule is thus made absolute as indicated above. Criminal Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/DEC 2009/cri.appl.2008-09