1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1342 OF 2009 1) Meerabai w/o Laxman Kamble and ors. - APPLICANTS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra and Anr. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.RM Deshmukh,Advocate for Applicant; Mrs.BR Khekale, APP for Respondent No.1/State; Mr. SE Madne, Adv. For Respondent No.2. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 4th August 2009. PER COURT : . Heard learned Counsel. 2) An F.I.R dated 6.3.2009, vide Crime No.I-21/2009, registered at Ghansawangi Police Station, district Jalna, for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, is sought to be quashed. 3) The Counsel urged that this application is not by the husband and in-laws of the complainant, but the applicants herein are close 2 relatives of husband of the complainant and they are residing at distant places, as indicated in paragraph 6 of the petition. The applicants are residing within the vicinity of around 4-6 kms while applicant no.4 – Pandurang s/o Yashwant Raut is in service as a teacher since 17.7.1995 and residing at Ambad along with his wife, applicant no.8 – Urmilabai Raut. The distance is around 50 kms. 4) The Counsel reiterated that the accusations in the report lodged by the complainant are totally falsehood. The complainant implicated all the relations of her husband to cause pressure on them and it is abuse of process of law. 5) The contention, that the allegations or averments in the report are false or abuse of process of law, at this stage, cannot be accepted, as the recitals in the FIR in specific terms implicate each of the applicants as to how, for compliance of dowry amount of Rs.1,60,000/-, and its part payment, the wife/complainant has been harassed and tortured as the balance of Rs. 1,00,000/- was left over. The complainant alleged that she was abused in filthy language, mentally and physically harassed and she was driven out. The allegations, though are general in nature, cannot be, at this stage, said to be a figment in itself to attribute false accusations. 3 It is only during the evidence, the grain can be separated from the chaff, as there are statements of 2-3 more witnesses recorded during investigation. However, without adverting to the statements, the fact remains, the FIR taken in its logical sense, at this stage, makes out a case against each of the applicants/accused for the offences of Sections 498A, 323,504 or 506. In this scenario, it is difficult to accept that the power under section 482 of Cr.P.C is to be exercised in favour of the applicants/accused. It is well settled, such exercise is to be sparingly effected and when there is infraction of three ingredients, as indicated in Section 482 Cr.P.C. Itself. On reading FIR, to reiterate, I find that the initiation of proceeding by the complainant/wife cannot be attributed to be abuse of process of law. However, in spite of all these odds in favour of the applicants/accused herein, the fact remains that applicant no.4 – Pandurang s/o Yashwant Raut and applicant no. 8 – Urmilabai w/o Pandurang Raut, both stay at a distance of 50 kms away and since applicant – Pandurang is in service as a teacher, it will be a difficult situation for him to attend the court proceedings every now and then. In the situation following order - 6) Criminal Application is dismissed. However, upon an application made by applicant – 4 Pandurang s/o Yashant Raut and Urmilabai w/o Pandurang Raut, the learned Judge seized with the matter, shall favourably consider such application and exempt presence of these two applicants/accused except warranted during trial. With these observations, the criminal application stands disposed of. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/cran1342-09