1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.2157 of 2009 1. Sandip Subhash Jadhav, Age: 34 years, Occu. 2. Sau.Sushama Subhash Jadhav, Age: 50 years, Occu. household. 3. Subhash Dagadu Jadhav, Age: 53 years, occu. 4. Kum.Vaishali Subhash Jadhav, Age: 27 years, occu. All r/o. Punam Sagar cooperative Housing Society, Mira Road, Room No.603, Wing L-46, Dist. Thane. ...APPLICANTS. VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Pradnya Sandip Jadhav, Age: 27 years, occu. service, r/o Pandit Gorakh Salve, Londhe Complex, Champa Bag, Sakri Road, Dhule. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mrs. Sushma Savale, Advocate, for the applicants. Mr. K.M.Suryawanshi, A.P.P., for respondent State. ... 2 CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:25/8/2009 ... P.C.: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the accused/applicants. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the Counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant (husband) and other relations have requested to quash and set aside the proceedings effected by Smt. Pradnya Sandip Jadhav, giving rise to Crime No. 215/2008, registered at Dhule City Police Station on the ground that the averments in the FIR, indicate the so called infraction of Penal provisions has taken place at Mumbai and could not be said to have taken place at Dhule. Hence, FIR at Dhule is without jurisdiction. 3. At this stage of the matter, even a cursory glance at the FIR will make it more than clear the last incident dt.7th August, 2008, has taken place at her parental house in Dhule when the accused/applicants with others came to her residence, sought divorce from her. They were clenched and pacified, however, there was no reconcilement to the accused/applicants. The husband and other relations threatened her. The 3 husband slapped her, abused in filthy language. He threatened her of elimination, by dousing kerosene and left her at parental house. It was in this situation that the wife approached the Police on 9th August, 2008 at Dhule. The earlier incident quoted, though took place at Mumbai, however, the subsequent incident being at Dhule, at the parental house of the victim, the Police Station at Dhule has jurisdiction. The gravity of events, prompted the wife to move the Police at Dhule. 4. Reliance to the judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in T.Balaji Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (Criminal Petition No.3844 of 2002 (2006) INAPHC 111 (3rd March 2006) will not be available as the FIR in the said case was totally disclosing the place of offense, to be other place, without demur of the place where the offense came to be registered. 5. The Counsel also relied to the judgment in the case of Manish Ratan and others Vs. State of M.P. & Anr (2006) InSC 731 (1st November 2006). In the case of Manish Ratan, Lordships found that the offense has taken place at Jabalpur and not at Datia and, consequently, Lordships directed transfer of the criminal case. No such situation, apparently, is emerging in the present case, in the light of the recitals disclosed in 4 the FIR. No interference is warranted. The request for quashing the proceedings refused. Rule discharged. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/2157-09crapl ...