1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 799 OF 2010 Ranjeet S/o Shreedhar Pokale and others ..APPLICANTS -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and another ..RESPONDENTS ......... Mr. S.R. Bharad holding for Mr. V.D. Salunke, advocate for applicants. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for respondent/State. Mr. G.K. Thigale (Thigle), Advocate for respondent no.2. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 6th October, 2010. PER COURT : 1. This application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is being finally disposed of, at the stage of admission with the consent of learned Advocates. 2. Heard learned Advocates and the learned A.P.P. 3. The avernments in the F.I.R. prima facie show that the wife of the applicant no.1 was being subjected to matrimonial cruelty in the house of her husband. The F.I.R. further purports to show that on 8th August, 2009, the husband and mother-in-law instigated her to commit suicide by keeping insecticide and one 2 pack of rat killing drug in her front. They told her to consume that poisonous substance and end her life. She was fed up with the ill- treatment, and therefore, consumed the insecticide and poisonous drug used for rat killing. 4. It is not necessary to elaborately set out the case of prosecution in keeping with elaborate F.I.R. lodged by Smt. Snehal i.e. the victim. It appears from the F.I.R. that since the day of marriage, there was strange relationship between the family members of the applicants and the maternal family members of informant-Smt. Snehal. She asserted that for about a month after the marriage, the applicant nos.5 and 6 resided in the house of her husband. It is further alleged that the applicant no.3-Pradnya and her husband i.e. applicant no.4-Sudam inquired with her on 12th June, 2009 whether she had brought gold from maternal home. Considering the nature of allegations made in the F.I.R., it is manifestly clear that the applicant nos.3 and 4 were not residing in the matrimonial house of the informant-Smt. Snehal and had casually visited the house on 12th June, 2009. Even assuming that they had inquired with her about the gold ornaments provided by her parents, it can not be said that such act on the part of applicant nos.3 and 4 would come within the ambit of provisions of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. A causal inquiry by them 3 can not amount to matrimonial cruelty as such. Similarly, the applicant nos.5 and 6 were not residing in the matrimonial house of informant. They are inhabitants of Belgaum, which is far away from Beed where the matrimonial house of the informant is situated. It is vaguely alleged that for about one month, the applicant nos.5 and 6 are residing in the matrimonial house after the marriage. It is alleged that they entered into arguments with her saying that her parents should have given gold ornaments of at least 50 to 60 Tolas. They are not the family members of her husband. 5. Considering the nature of allegations made in the F.I.R. and attending circumstances, it is explicit that the informant roped in the applicant nos.3 to 6 without there being substratum to attribute any kind of matrimonial cruelty to them. Nor it is the case of the informant that they instigated her to commit suicide, and therefore, she had consumed poisonous insecticide and pack of rat killing drug. In this view of the matter, it will have to be said that there is absolutely no tangible evidence to implicate the applicant nos.3 to 6 and the F.I.R. lodged against them is unsustainable. Still, however, there is prima facie evidence to the extent of applicant nos.1 and 2 and that the informant was admitted in the hospital due to alleged poisoning. It is further clear that the 4 applicant nos.1 and 2 were prima facie responsible for the alleged matrimonial cruelty meeted out to the informant. In this view of the matter, the F.I.R. as against the applicant nos.1 and 2 can not be quashed only on the ground that there is delay in filing the F.I.R. 6. In the result, the application is partly allowed. The F.I.R. to the extent of applicant nos.3 to 6 is quashed though the application to the extent of applicant nos.1 and 2 is dismissed. The charge sheet to the extent of applicant nos.3 to 6 is also quashed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/cri799.10