( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3552 OF 2010 Gayabai Ambadasrao Patange & another APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another RESPONDENTS .... Mr. Amit A. Mukhedkar, advocate for the applicants. Smt. S.D. Shelke, APP for the respondent/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 7th September, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with crime No. 109/2010, registered at Ardhapur Police Station for offence punishable under section 498A, 304-B and 306 read with section 34 of the I.P. Code. They are in-laws of deceased Ratnamala. The marriage was performed on 15th April, 2008 between deceased Smt. Ratnamala and son of the applicants, namely, Prasad. According to the FIR filed by her father, they were demanding Rs. 30,000/- for construction of a ( 2 ) bore-well in the agricultural land. It is alleged that the husband and his relatives used to ill-treat deceased Smt. Ratnamala and used to taunt her that she was unable to cook properly. She has left a minor son, aged about one (1) year and an infant female child. The FIR purports to show that on 17th June, 2010, the informant had been to the house of the deceased Smt. Ratnamala at Ardhapur. At that time, she narrated to him that her husband and in-laws as well as brother-in-law used to beat her and trouble her due to non- fulfillment of the demand for the money. He requested them not to trouble her. The alleged incident occurred after a couple of days on 19th June, 2010. She allegedly committed suicide by self-hanging by means of a saree, in the bedroom of the matrimonial house. It prima facie appears that death of Smt. Ratnamala was unnatural and that soon before her alleged suicide or homicide, she was being harassed by the husband and his relatives including the applicants. 3. It is argued by learned advocate for the applicants that the applicants are residing separately and they are unconcerned with the alleged offence. These are the questions of facts which are required to be determined after the investigation and at this juncture, such contention cannot be ( 3 ) considered. No substantial grounds appear to exist for grant of extraordinary relief under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application is, therefore, dismissed. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln3552-10