1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3051 OF 2009 1. Jeewan S/o.Manmath Tondare, Age-38 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Nalegaon, Tq.Chakur, Dist. Latur, 2. Sanjay S/o.Manmath Tondare, Age-43 years, Occu-Business, 3. Anusayabai w/o.Manmath Tondare, Age-67 years, Occu-Nil, 4. Chhayabai W/o.Sanjay Tondare, Age-36 years, Occu-Household, Petitioner no.2 to 4 R/o. Plot No.588 Sector 21, Yamuna Nagar, Nigadi, Pune-44. APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Shirur Anantal, Tq.Shirur Anantpal, Dist. Latur 2. Ashabai W/o.Jeewan Tondare, Age-33 years, Occu-Household, R/o.C/o.Rudrapp Sopa, Jalkot, Tq.Jalkot, Dist. Latur RESPONDENTS Mr.P.G.Rodge, learned counsel for applicants. Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned APP for respondent State. Mr.V.T.Sakolkar, learned counsel for respondent no.2 2 (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 15/02/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. By the present application, the applicants have approached this Court u/s. 482 of The Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR in CR No. 81/2009, registered in Shirur Anantpal Police Station of District : Latur, dated 05/07/2009 u/s. 498A, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC. 2. It appears that this application came to be filed on 14/09/2009 and order came to be passed on 14/09/2009 in respect of interim relief in terms of prayer clause "C". But it appears that in the present case, charge sheet was already filed on 25/08/2009 against all the persons who were arrayed as an accused, who are applicants before this Court. In the premise, there is no question about the interim stay to the investigation as before filing of the application, the investigation is already over. 3. Considering the submissions across the bar, Rule. 4. Rule made returnable forthwith. The application is finally heard at the stage of admission itself. 5. While considering the submissions across the bar, it is necessary to consider the date of the FIR and the allegations in the FIR against the present applicants. But at the same time, it can not 3 be disputed that complainant Ashabai Tondare is the wife of second applicant and applicant no.3 is the mother in law of the complainant, the mother of applicant no.1 and 2. It appears that said offence came to be registered on 05/07/2009 in Anantpal Shirur Police Station of Dist. Latur vide CR No.81/2009 as stated earlier on the complaint of Ashabai Tondare. It is stated in the complaint, particularly in internal para no.3 that since the year 1998, she is residing with her parents alongwith her son and thereafter received threats on phone from her husband and the other applicants about their illegal demands. There is specific allegations against first applicant that after the complainant returned to her parents house in the year 1998, first applicant used to visit the parents house of complainant and was giving threats about his illegal demand of Rs. 1,50,000/- and was used to assault her. Hence the offence for the sections under Penal Code for which there is accusation against the applicants. 6. Considering these facts as stated in the complaint dated 05/07/2009, on the face of it, it is clear that since the year 1998, complainant is not residing with the applicants, but is residing with her parents. So far as the allegations against all the applicants that they used to threaten to satisfy their illegal demands on phone. As stated earlier, before filing of this application, on 25/08/2009, charge sheet is already filed. The complaint is silent on the point as to when phone calls were received and what is the text of those phone calls. Apart from it, as once the charge sheet is filed, it is necessary for the 4 Court to scan and examine the evidence collected during the investigation. On perusal of the charge sheet, the fact is clear that no evidence is collected about incoming or outgoing calls or whether there is any phone instrument at the parents house of complainant. Thus so far as the allegations against applicant no.2 to 4 are concerned, there is no evidence about their presence at the residence of parents house of the complainant, but only threats were given on phone for which there is omni-bus allegations in the complaint and to support those allegations, no material is collected during the investigation. Thus so far as the evidence against applicant no.2 to 4, even after completion of investigation is totally silent. 7. At the opening of the submissions, it is made clear by the counsel for the applicants that he is not pressing for the application against the husband of first applicant. Considering this aspect, and there is prima facie no evidence against applicant no.2 to 4, either in the complaint or in the papers of investigation till carried out, the FIR registered against applicant no.2 to 4 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly CR No.81/2009, registered in Anantpal Shirur Police Station of Dist. Latur is quashed and set aside, so far as applicant no.2 to 4 are concerned, but to continue against applicant no.1. Thus the application is partly succeeds. 8. Rule thus made absolute as indicated above. 9. Application stands disposed of in terms of above order. If 5 applicant no.2 to 4 have furnished bail before the lower court, their bail bonds also stand cancelled. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/FEB 2010/cri.appl.3051-09