1 CRI.APPLN.NO.616 OF 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.616 OF 2011 1. Ravindrasingh s/o Kartarsingh Siledar, Aged 40 yrs., Occu. Driver, r/o Osmanpura, Aurangabad. 2. Triloksingh s/o Kartarsingh Siledar, Aged 45 yrs., Occu. Agri., r/o. Jyoti Nagar, Aurangabad. 3. Ranbirsingh s/o Harnamsingh Hira (Siledar), Aged 62 yrs., Occu. Coaching Classes, r/o near Renukamata Mandir, Beed Bypass, Aurangabad. ...PETITIONERS (Orig.Accused) VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Incharge Police Station Officer, Police Station, Osmanpura, Aurangabad. 2. Sow.Harjeetkaur w/o Ravindersingh Siledar, Aged 33 yrs., Occu. Tailor, r/o Plot No.40, New SBH Colony, Jyoti Nagar, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS (The respondent No.1 is the State and the respondent No.2 is Orig.Complainant) ... 2 CRI.APPLN.NO.616 OF 2011 Mr. S.S.Choudhari, Adv., for the applicants. Mr. N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondent State. Mr. R.G.Joshi, Adv., for respondent no.2. ... CORAM: A.H.JOSHI & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. Date: Oct.,3rd, 2011 *** ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per A.H.Joshi, J.) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by Consent. 2. In this petition the FIR lodged by respondent no.2 for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC on 15th Jan.,2011 is under challenge. 3. The ground of challenge as urged is that, the contents of the FIR are being highly improbable in the following background:- (i) The petitioner No.1 herein had filed on 18.1.2010 Hindu Marriage Petition seeking divorce against respondent no.1 and the person who was responsible for living in adultery with her, as respondent no.2. 3 CRI.APPLN.NO.616 OF 2011 (ii) Respondent No.2 had filed written statement in Hindu Marriage Petition on 17.6.2010. (iii) An FIR was lodged by respondent on 16.9.2010. As no cognizance of the FIR was taken, she has filed Regular Criminal Case/private complaint on 4.10.2010. 4. Perusal of pleadings in all these matters disclose that respondent no.1 had never incorporated in any of the complaints averments which are now incorporated in the FIR. 5. Based on these contradiction and omission, learned Advocate for the petitioner has argued that the contents of the FIR are improbable and hence offence ought not to have been registered. 6. Moreover, learned A.P.P. has made a statement that the chargesheet is filed. 7. Whether the chargesheet is based on sound foundation and whether it should lead to regular trial, these are the matters to be seen by the Court having jurisdiction. 4 CRI.APPLN.NO.616 OF 2011 8. In this background, we are satisfied that there is no case for granting any relief. 9. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. (A.R.JOSHI) (A.H.JOSHI) JUDGE JUDGE ... agp/616-11crapl