(1) CRI.APP. 3894.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3894 OF 2010 Shivaji @ Rahul Bhagwan Narwate and ors. .. Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and anr. .. Respondents ... Mr. A.D. Aghav, Advocate for the Applicants Mr. V.D. Godbharle, APP for the respondent-State ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 20TH OCTOBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. This is an Application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The applicants seek quashing of the FIR filed by the respondent no.2 for offences under section 498-A, 323, 504 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR is registered at Sirsala Police Station vide crime no. 86 of 2010. 3. According to the applicants, they have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence though the complainant herself had left the matrimonial house (2) CRI.APP. 3894.2010 because she did not like her husband being a sugar- cane cutter. It is pointed out that father-in-law of the respondent no.2 had filed a report with the Police on 18.3.2009 (Ex. 'B' to the Application). 4. The learned Advocate for the applicants would submit that the applicants no.4 and 5 are residing at Aurangabad and have been falsely implicated in the criminal case. 5. I have considered the pleadings of the Application and the recitals of the FIR. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent no.2 is wife of the applicant no.1. It appears that their marriage was performed somewhere in 2008. The wife alleged that demand of Rs.2 Lakhs was made by the applicant no.1, and the other applicants. They were harassing her due to non-fulfillment of the part of the demand. The investigation is yet not completed. Whether the applicants subjected the complainant to matrimonial cruelty, or that they or either of them has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence of matrimonial cruelty, is the subject matter of investigation. (3) CRI.APP. 3894.2010 6. At such a premature stage, the FIR cannot be quashed only because there was a previous report filed by the applicant no.2 against the respondent no.2 unless there is a clear cut prima facie evidence to infer absence of the complicity of the applicants, it would not be appropriate to entertain the Application. Hence, the Application is dismissed. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp