* 1 * WP.-3435-2010 9. Dec. 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3435 OF 2010 Smt. Kareema Karmaan Raajaani ......Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashrta (at the instance of Gaondevi Police Station) .....Respondent Mr. Nishith Thakkar i/by. Mr. Kishore Pashte, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the State. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 9 December, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code seeks quashing of C.C. No. 287/PW/2010 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 474 and 34 Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief case of the prosecution is that, one Mr. William and his wife, Triza had complained that on 24th December, 2009 the petitioner had collected Rs.15,000/- and passport of Teresa with a promise to get U.S. visa for her. Thereafter, she failed to respond to any of the calls from William and Triza. Therefore, they went to * 2 * WP.-3435-2010 9. Dec. 2011 Gaondevi Police Station with a complaint. They were, however, directed to Dindoshi Police Station alongwith the petitioner as the offence had taken place within the jurisdiction of Dindoshi Police Station. At Dindoshi Police station, the petitioner was made to return the amount of Rs.15,000/- and the passport to Mr. William. Thereafter, the petitioner was brought back to Gaondevi Police Station where the complainant, Ms. Brijal Jayant Sura identified her as the person who had cheated her on 15th May, 2009 by taking Rs. 15,000/- from her with a promise to get U.S. visa. It is further alleged that on 19th May, 2010 she had taken Rs.5,50,000/- and disappeared with the money. Ms. Brijal Sura had lodged complaint with Gaondevi Police Station on 20th May, 2009. The police arrested the petitioner in the complaint filed by Brijal Sura vide C.R No. 297 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 474 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. 2. The grounds set out by the petitioner for quashing of the proceedings are twofold. Firstly, that it is a false complaint and secondly that the material on record does not connect her to the offence alleged. The petition also makes serious allegations of sexual harrassment against the Investigation Officer, A.P.I. Vinod Sawant. 3. Mr. Thakker, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that * 3 * WP.-3435-2010 9. Dec. 2011 the description given by the complainant, Brijal Sura of the person who is alleged to have cheated her, does not match with the petitioner. The description given is a woman aged about 35 to 40 “ years with height of 5 feet, fair complexion, of strong built, slightly lame by one leg and sporting short hair”. The petitioner had allegedly operated under the name of Sonali Rathod. Mr. Thakkar, submits that the petitioner is neither lame in her leg nor sports short hair. Merely because part of the description does not match with the appearance of the petitioner, she cannot be completely disassociated from the offence on that ground alone. 4. It has been next contended that at the relevant time, the petitioner was infact 7 months pregnant and had even been admitted to Lilavati Hospital on 10th May, 2009 due to problems relating to pregnancy. She was discharged on 14th May, 2009 i.e. just a day prior to the incident alleged by the complainant-Brijal Sura. It is the claim of the petitioner that she was admitted to Lilavati Hospital about six times since November, 2008 till the delivery of her child and that she had been advised bedrest after discharge from Lilavati Hospital. The petitioner gave birth to a child on 1st July, 2009 after completing nine months of her pregnancy. This claim made by the petitioner will have to be established by her at the time of trial. As regards the allegation * 4 * WP.-3435-2010 9. Dec. 2011 of harrassment made against the Investigation Officer, the same cannot be a ground for quashing of the complaint against her because it has not been alleged by the petitioner that he has falsely implicated her into the complaint. Hence, the petition is dismissed. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]