drp {1} CWP No.1052/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1052 OF 2010 Kisan Baburao Surwase & others PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mrs.S.S.Renge, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondent State Mr.S.S.Shinde, Advocate for respondent No.2 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 28th March 2011 PER COURT: 1. By this petition, u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners, original accused, have prayed for quashing of the FIR at Crime No.171/2010, registered with Kaij Police station. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners followed by learned APP for respondent State and learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record. 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that earlier an offence at Crime No.4/2009 was registered on 31.01.2009 in Washi drp {2} CWP No.1052/2010 Police Station and on the same allegations and in respect of same incident, a second FIR is registered at Kaij Police station at Crime No.171/2010 by the second respondent. Perusal of the recitals of both the complaints indicates that the offence at Crime No.4/2009 registered at Washi police station is in respect of the incident, which took place on 12.01.2009 at the matrimonial house of respondent No.2 whereas the second complaint is in respect of the incident dated 24.06.2010 which took place at the parents house of second respondent. In the premise, it cannot be said that both the complaints pertain to one and the same incident. If there is repetition of the incident and complaints are lodged in respect of both the said incidents, that does not mean that two complaints are filed of one and the same incident. 4. Relying on the observations of the Apex Court, in the matter of "Vijeta Gajra V/s State of NCT of Delhi" 2010 (6) Scale 533, wherein it is observed that no offence punishable u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code, can be registered against the person, who is not in blood relation with the husband of the victim, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that so far as applicant No.5 Laxmibai is concerned, she is not in blood relation with the husband of respondent No.2-complainant and hence there shall not be any offence u/s 498A against said Laxmibai. 5. It is to be noted that the FIR is registered not only u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code, but also for other offences. In the drp {3} CWP No.1052/2010 premise, at least at this stage, the observations on which reliance is placed, are not applicable to the case in hand. 6. Considering the recitals of both the complaints, it is clear that the impugned complaint is distinct from the offence which was registered earlier. It is settled position of law that the FIR can be quashed if the ingredients do not satisfy that the same constitute an offence, alleged. Considering the fact that the complaint satisfies that the allegations constitute an offence and in view of the fact that the second complaint is in respect of different incident, the impugned FIR cannot be quashed. In the result, the petition, which is sans merits, stands dismissed. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A11/cwp1052-10