1 cr-apln-3415-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLN. NO. 3415 OF 2010 Mr. Kalpesh Gajanan Ganapule and Ors. ..Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents .... Mrs. Vishranti Navale Adv. for applicants Mr. V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : AUGUST 27, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the applicants-original accused nos.1 to 4 and the learned APP for the State. 2 The applicants are praying for quashing of FIR being CR No. I-460 of 2009 of Naupada Police Station, Thane and the proceedings relating thereto. The said case is numbered as Regular Criminal Case No. 15 of 2010 and is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C. Thane. 2 cr-apln-3415-10 3 The respondent no.2 was married to applicant no.1 on 27.2.2009. The applicant nos.2 and 3 are the mother and father of applicant no.1 and applicant no.4 is the sister of applicant no.1. The case of the complainant i.e. respondent no.2 is that she was married to applicant no.1 on 27.2.2009 and thereafter, there was a demand of amount by the accused persons and as the demand was not met, physical and mental torture was caused by the accused to the respondent no.2. 4 The learned advocate for the applicants submitted that applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 were residing separately and none of the applicant nos.2 to 4 were residing with them and as the applicant nos.2 to 4 were not residing with respondent no.2, there was no question of any harassment either mental or physical by them to the respondent no.2. It may be that applicant nos.2 to 4 were not residing with applicant no.1 and respondent no.2, however, the FIR clearly shows that all the applicants demanded Rs. 6 lakhs to buy a car for applicant no.1 and they insisted that the said amount be bought and on this count, she was mentally and physically harassed. On going through the averments in the FIR, prima facie case under Section 498-A is clearly made out. 5 As far as the offence under Section 406 of IPC is concerned, in the FIR, it is stated that on 1.11.2009, the applicant no.1 took away all 3 cr-apln-3415-10 the articles in the flat and went away. Thus, on reading the FIR, the offence under Section 406 of IPC is prima facie made out. The learned advocate for the applicants submitted that the articles which are mentioned in the FIR were returned to the respondent no.2 in the presence of the police. However, it is noticed that if at all the articles were returned, they were returned only after filing FIR. In my opinion that is an aspect which can best be gone into by the trial Court. In the present case, investigation is over and the charge sheet has been filed. Looking to the FIR and the other material gathered by the prosecution, no case is made out for quashing the proceedings. Hence, the application is rejected. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]