1 CR.WP NO.17/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.17 OF 2011 1. Hanumant s/o Shripati Mundhe, Age 35 years, Occu: Business, r/o House No.7, Survey No.25, Jai Bhavani Nagar, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad. 2. Shripati s/o Apparao Mundhe, Age 80 years, Occu: Nil. 3. Indirabai w/o Shripati Mundhe, Age 70 years, Occu: Household, 4. Surekha w/o Babasaheb Rakh, Age: 26 years, Occu: Household, r/o Therla, Tq. Patoda, Dist. Beed. 5. Suryakant s/o Shripati Mundhe, Age: 38 years, Occu: Business, 6. Chandrakant s/o Shripati Mundhe, Age 36 years, Occu: Business. 7. Jayant s/o Shripati Mundhe, Age: 31 years, Occu: Business, r/o House No.29, Survey No.68, Jai Bhavani Nagar, Aurangabad, Taluka & District: Aurangabad. 8. Shrimant s/o Shripati Mundhe, Age 28 years, Occu: Practitioner. 9. Aruna w/o Chandrakant Mundhe, Age: 30 years,Occu: Business & Household, Petitioner No. 2,3, 6, 8 and 9 r/o Plot No.585, N-2, CIDCO, 2 CR.WP NO.17/2011 Aurangabad, Taluka & District:Aurangabad. 10. Asha w/o Suryakant Mundhe, Age: 35 years, Occu: Household, Petitioner No. 5 & 10, r/o House No.34, Jai Bhavani Nagar, Aurangabad, Taluka & District Aurangabad. ..PETITIONERS (Orig.Accused) VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Pimpalner Police Station, Pimpalner, Taluka & District: Beed. 2. Sunita w/o Hanumant Mundhe, Age 35 years, Occu: Business, r/o. At/Post: Khandala, Taluka & District:Beed. ...RESPONDENTS (Resp.No.2 is Orig.Complainant) ... Mr.P.S.Pawar, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr.P.P.More, APP for State. Mr.M.R.Andhale, Adv., for Respondent no.2, absent. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:June 21st, 2011 *** PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr.Pawar. Respondent no.2, inspite of service and causing appearance through Advocate, absent. 3 CR.WP NO.17/2011 Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. The petitioners have urged to quash and set aside Crime No.126/2010, registered with Pimpalner Police Station, Pimpalner, taluka and dist. Beed, against the petitioners for offense under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. The matrimonial relations of complainant Sunita with Hanumant Mundhe, having married in the year 1996, and giving birth to a female before around 11 years, is not in controversy. It seems, the couple could not travel to the matrimonial obligation after three years and the bickering in the couple made the spouse to live separately. An incident, allegedly, took place on 5.5.2009, when the accused/applicant nos. 1 to 4, allegedly, assaulted the complainant Smt. Sunita and drove her away from matrimonial abode. This gave rise to the questioned FIR on 20th Dec.,2010. 4. Learned Counsel for the accused/applicants submit, reading the FIR to its face value, no case of any accusation is made out against the accused/applicants, particularly, the husband, in-laws or other relations. It is informed, by placing requisite documents that brother of Hanumant, namely, Chandrakant resides 4 CR.WP NO.17/2011 at Aurangabad separately with parents and wife. He has nothing to do with matrimonial feud with the Sunita and her husband. The parents, as stated above, are incorporated in the ration card, to be staying with Chandrakant and his wife. Inspite of this position, they are also roped in the prosecution. One of the brother-in- law is reported to be an Advocate, remotely concerned with the allegations but he is also facing the tune of prosecution. 5. There is no explanation for belated FIR for the events referred above and the delay. This mars the genuineness of the assertions made therein. That apart, the wife Sunita had approached Police and Women Dispute Redressal Forum where she came with a new case that the husband Hanumant has married with another lady and she does not desire to join his company. 6. Learned Counsel has rightly said, when the parties have virtually severed relations for at least seven years, there could not be an occasion on 5.5.2009 to manhandle or humiliate or abuse the complainant Sunita. I find substance in it. 7. Normally, while entertaining petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., by exercising powers, the defense raised by the accused are not 5 CR.WP NO.17/2011 to be ordinarily considered by the Court. However, it does not mean that the documents of unimpeachable character should not be taken into consideration at any cost for the purpose of finding out as to whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of the Court or that the complaint petition is filed for merely causing harassment to the accused (M/s Suryalaxmi Vs. M/s Rajdeep ( AIR 2008 SC 1683). In the above situation, the document in the form of electricity bills of Smt. Surekha, sister-in-law, ration card of Chandrakant, brother, need to be evaluated and I have so done. The wife, inspite of service, as said earlier, there is no participation from her. Survey of above facts is indicative that the prosecution is to pressurize the husband and his relations, to succumb to the unjust demands of the wife - complainant Sunita. Without offering any excuse for her belated action, she desired that the accused/applicants need to be dealt with. The prosecution is certainly abuse of process of the Court and warrants for interference. Same is accordingly quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/17-11crwp