(1) CRI.APP. 3174.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3174 OF 2010 1. Rahul S/o Kisanrao Salve 2. Asarabai w/o Kisanrao Salve .. Applicants VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Kalpana w/o Rahul Salve .. Respondents ... Mr. S.B. Choudhari, Advocate for the Applicants Mrs. B.R. Khekale, APP for the respondent-State ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 7TH OCTOBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. This is an Application filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the private complaint case bearing RTC no. 154 of 2009 instituted by the respondent no.2 for offences punishable under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The respondent no.2 is wife of the applicant no.1. The applicant no.2 is her mother in law. The respondent no.2 filed private complaint case before the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) Rahata vide RTC no. 154 of 2009 alleging that the applicants (2) CRI.APP. 3174.2010 subjected her to matrimonial cruelty during the period of stay with them. Their private complaint purports to show that the marriage of the respondent no.2 with the applicant no.1 was performed on 17.4.2008. It is alleged that the applicant no.1 used to suspect her fidelity and used to beat her. It is further alleged in the private complaint that the applicants used to demand Rs.2 Lakhs and that the respondent no.2 (complainant) was being kept starved. 3. The learned Advocate submits that the complaint application is false and without any basis. He would submit that there is delay of more than four months in filing of the complaint after the alleged incident dated 24.3.2009. He further submits that there is no reliable material to proceed against the applicants. He points out that the applicant no.1 had issued a notice to the respondent no.2 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. 4. What appears from the record is that the private complaint case was instituted on 15.7.2009. The applicant no.1 issued notice calling upon the (3) CRI.APP. 3174.2010 respondent no.2 to join his company for co-habitation on 26.10.2009. Thus, prima facie it may be gathered that the applicant no.1 issued such notice after he gathered knowledge in respect of the private complaint case instituted by respondent no.2. 5. Mere delay in filing of such complaint cannot be considered as a ground for quashing of the private complaint case. Private complaint case instituted by the respondent no.2 cannot be branded as false without giving opportunity to the respondent no.2 to adduce evidence during course of the trial. Such a finding would be premature and cannot be rendered on basis of mere defences which are to be verified by the applicants in the present Application. 6. Under the circumstances, the extra-ordinary jurisdiction available under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be invoked. The Application is therefore dismissed. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp