1 Cri. Application 1868/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Application No.1868 Of 2010 1) Chandrakant s/o Magan Tirmale, R/o Plot No.93, Dattakuber Society, Harinagar-3 Udhna, Surat (Gujarat) 2) Magan s/o Ramdas Tirmale, R/o As above. 3) Shobha Magan Tirmale, R/o As above. 4) Sangeeta Uttam Tirmale, R/o Old Post Lane, Shahada, District Nandurbar. 5) Santosh Magan Tirmale, R/o Vikhurle, Taluka Shindkheda, District Dhule. ... Petitioners. Versus 1) The State of Maharashtra. 2) Kalpana Chandrakant Tirmale, At Post Dhamane, Taluka Shindkheda, District Dhue. ... Respondents. -------- Smt. C.S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri. V.D. Rakh, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 - served. -------- 2 Cri. Application 1868/2010 CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 24th JUNE 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1) Heard. 2) The applicant, husband and in-laws of respondent No.2 have urged to quash and set aside the FIR bearing No.3/2010 filed at Police Station Dondaicha for offences under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3) In spite of service the wife respondent is absent. 4) The marital status between wife and applicant No.1 Chandrakant having married on 14-3-2008 is not in controversy. 5) Learned counsel for the applicants / accused submits that immediately after the marriage, the wife / respondent No.2 left the company of the applicants to reside separate as she had controversy with the family members. Thereafter on 26-5-2008 she had initiated 3 Cri. Application 1868/2010 proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights. Learned counsel submits that since at least that day the parties are separate. In September 2009, as per the FIR, maintenance in terms of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is awarded to the wife at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month. 6) The above details and events illustrate that after a span of short duration of the marriage, the respondent wife has left the marital abode and initiated above referred proceedings. There could not have been any occasion to her to join the company of her husband or to face ill-treatment. The allegations in the complaint expanding span of ill- treatment from 14-3-2008 to 29-12-2009 is contrary to her own assertions in the maintenance petition. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. 7) The complainant herself has informed that she was away from the husband and claimed maintenance for the long duration which follows that the allegations made against the applicants are actuated with malice and couched with falsehood. 4 Cri. Application 1868/2010 8) The applicant No.4 is a married sister who resides at Shahada, District Nandurbar. She had no occasion to go and reside at during the complainant's stay in April 2009. These aspects also call for consideration. 9) Taking overall view of the events the prosecution against the applicants by the wife is to pressure and terrorise the applicants and is an abuse of court process. In terms of seven guidelines in the matter of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, AIR 1992 SC 604(1) this is a fit case to interfere in the matter invoking the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10) Consequently the prosecution vide FIR No. 3/2010 of Police Station Dondaicha under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Sd/- (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) rsl