1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1719 of 2010 Nusrat Ali Yawar Ali and others ..VERSUS.. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S., Akot, Dist. Akola Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. S. A. Mohta, Advocate for the applicants Mr. C. N. Adgokar, A.P.P. for the respondent/State. CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J. DATED : 06 th April , 2011 . 1. Heard Mr. S. A. Mohta, learned Advocate for the applicants and Mr. C. N. Adgokar, learned APP for the State. 2. By the present application, the applicants are seeking quashment of the First Information Report registered at Police Station, Akot vide Crime No. 82/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The brief facts of the case of the applicants are that applicant no.1 is the husband of complainant Gajala Parveen, applicant no.2 is the mother, applicant no.3 is the sister, applicant nos. 4 to 7 are the brothers and applicant no.8 is the sister-in-law of applicant no.1. The marriage between applicant no.1 and complainant Gajala Parveen was performed on 04/11/2007 by following the customs and traditions of muslim religion. For the initial period everything was going well between the couple, but after a short span of time, they used to have frequent quarrels. The complainant was picking up quarrel with other family members of 2 applicant no.1 on petty issues. The reason behind these quarrels was that the complainant was not ready to reside in the joint family and was insisting upon applicant no.1 to reside separately, to which he was not ready. Inspite of the attempts made by applicant no.1, the complainant was adamant and left her matrimonial house some time in the month of March, 2008. However, with the intervention of some respectable persons of the community, the complainant Gajala again started residing in her matrimonial house. But, again after 5-6 months, Gajala left the matrimonial house. Out of the wedlock, the couple was blessed with a daughter and the complainant was residing at her parents house. Though, applicant no.1 and other family members made efforts for bringing back Gajala Parveen to her matrimonial home, their attempts went futile. The applicant no.1 and his family members were fed up with the adamant behaviour of the complainant . Though applicant no.1 was ready to cohabit with his wife Gajala, she was not ready to reside with applicant no.1 and his other family members at the matrimonial house. Ultimately, applicant no.1, left with no choice, issued a notice to Gajala Parveen for initiating judicial proceedings against her, if she is not ready to cohabit with him. On receiving the notice, complainant Gajala Parveen by way of a counter blast to the notice, lodged a report against the applicants at Police Station, Akot. 4. Mr. Mohta, learned Advocate for the applicants has submitted that in the report lodged by complainant Gajala, false and baseless allegations are levelled against the applicants. Bare perusal of the report would show that the allegations are levelled against applicant nos.1 to 3 about giving abuses as well as physical assault and demand of money. The learned Advocate further submitted that there is no specific allegations against these applicants and all the 3 allegations are of general nature. He submitted that the complainant Gajala has referred one incident dated 21/5/2010 and alleged that applicant nos.1, 2 and 3 abused her in filthy language, gave threat of life and tried to kill her. The learned Advocate also submitted that at the relevant time the applicant no.1 was engaged in the work of collecting information in respect of census and as such on 21/5/2010, he was collecting the information by visiting various houses. The documents i.e. extract of register, are placed on record in support of the submission. 5. The learned Advocate for the applicants submits that in view of the material which is vague and raises doubt about its genuineness, the report lodged against the applicants which is a counter blast to the notice issued by applicant no.1, require to be quashed. 6. Per contra, Mr. Adgokar, learned APP for the State has strongly opposed the application. The learned APP has filed the reply. It is submitted in the reply that on receiving the report lodged by the wife of applicant no.1, Gajala, the investigating agency has proceeded with the investigation and collected the material in the form of spot panchanama and the various statements of the witnesses. On concluding the investigation, the final report No. 75/2010 was prepared on 04/6/2010 and submitted vide C.C. No. 121/2010 on 05/6/2010 before J.M.F.C., Akot. The learned APP submits that in view of filing of the charge-sheet, the application is not tenable and the applicants can avail the other remedies as provided under the law. He, therefore, prayed for rejection of the application. 7. Perused the record. The material collected by the investigating agency was made available by the learned APP for perusal. Perusal of the material shows that in the report, complainant 4 Gajala has stated about the ill-treatment caused at the hands of the applicants. She has stated in the report that after three months of marital life, the applicants started demanding money and on that ground, she was subjected to ill-treatment. It is also stated in the report that applicant no.1 used to give threat to her that if she is unable to fulfill his demand of money, he will marry to some other teacher and as such he will receive salary of his second wife. It is also stated in the report that though the parents of complainant Gajala tried to pacify applicant no.1, he was giving abuses to her parents and was threatening for bringing the money. As per the report, on 25/5/2010, when Gajala along with her daughter and brother had been to her matrimonial home, the applicants started giving abuses. Applicant nos.1 to 3 assaulted her and her brother intervened in the matter and saved her. In the statements of the brother, father and uncle of Gajala as well as the neighbours, discloses that whenever Gajala used to visit her father and brother, she used to tell about the demand of money and ill-treatment at the hands of the applicants. Apart from the relatives, the neighbours also stated that they used to hear the noise of quarrel between applicant no.1, his other family members and complainant Gajala. From the statements, it is also revealed that the neighbours have stated that on 21/5/2010, the complainant Gajala came crying out of her matrimonial house. 8. Perusal of the material show that prima facie there is sufficient material against the applicants. Though the learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that on 21/5/2010, applicant no.1 was busy with the duty of collecting data in respect of census, in view of the statements recorded by the investigating agency, the genuineness of the material will have to be tested at the trial. This is not a stage where the assessment of the material collected by the 5 investigating agency is expected. 9. It is not in dispute that this Court by invoking the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., can quash the F.I.R., but it has to be done sparingly considering the material on record. In my opinion, there is sufficient material against the applicants and this is not a case requiring this Court to invoke the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. As such the application is devoid of merits. 10. In the result, the criminal application is rejected. JUDGE Diwale