1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.59 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.60 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.61 OF 2009 Pandharinath @ Sandip Murlidhar Shintre & Anr. .. Applicants Versus Sharada Pandharinath Shintre & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Milind Parab i/b. Milind Parab & Associates for applicants Mr.B.R.Dhawle for respondent No.1 Ms.A.T.Jhaveri, APP for State. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 9th February 2010. P.C.: 1] This applications are filed seeking quashing of proceedings. In Criminal Application No.59 of 2009, the request made is that the learned Magistrate has issued process. The matter pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Ulhasnagar being Regular Criminal Case No.2366 of 2007 alleges offences punishable under section 504 and 506 read with 34 IPC. However, that complaint is made by the wife and mother in law of the petitioner on same set of allegations as were made in 2 Regular Criminal Case No.156 of 2005. The Regular Criminal Case No. 156 of 2005 was instituted alleging commission of offences punishable under section 498A read with 34 IPC. However, it is alleged that the said complaint has been dismissed by the learned Judge for want of prosecution on 29th December 2006. On same set of allegations another complaint under section 498A is filed on 2nd April 2007 and now the subject criminal case is instituted on 3rd August 2007. All these are nothing but harassment tactics and the complainants want to involve the applicant in some criminal case or the other. The applicants cannot be compelled to face trial in a complaint which is ex facie not maintainable and is a fall out of matrimonial dispute. 2] It is not possible to accept these contentions at this prima facie stage. Regular Criminal case No.2366 of 2007 alleges commission of offences punishable under sections 504, 506 and 34 IPC. The incident has been set out and the complainant has mentioned as to how in the first matter/ complaint under section 498A, the husband assured her that there will be no disputes and quarrels hereafter and she would be taken back in the premises. However, even thereafter the harassment continued and that is the subject matter of the complaint, which is sought to be quashed 3 in Criminal Application No.60 of 2009. As far as complaint in Criminal Application No.59 of 2009 is concerned, it refers to the incident of 1st August 2007, there are abuses hurled at the complainant and her family members. Prima facie, it will not be possible to hold that the complaint does not disclose commission of any offence. Therefore, the Criminal Application No.59 is dismissed. 3] Insofar as Criminal Application No.60 of 2009 is concerned, it seeks quashing of criminal complaint being Regular Criminal Case No. 300 of 2007. There, the complainant has narrated as to how during the pendency of the first complaint, the husband assured that he would not throw her out of the premises and agreed and consented to resume cohabitation. In these circumstances, the incident narrated after the disposal of the first complaint being made subject matter straight away, it cannot be concluded that the complaint is not maintainable. Prima facie, this would require the Court below to go in to the materials produced, including the order on the earlier complaint. All pleas of both sides can be kept open and subject to the same, criminal application is dismissed. 4] In so far as Criminal Application No.61 of 2009 is concerned, it is 4 urged that Criminal Case No.1162 of 2008 is filed and the wife alleges bigamy. A perusal of the said complaint shows that the complainant has narrated that during the pendency of the proceedings between her and the accused No.1, the alleged marriage has taken place. The complaint allegations if perused as a whole, reveal that the essential ingredients of section 494 of IPC have been set out. In these circumstances, the order issuing process on this complaint as well cannot be faulted. In the result, Criminal Application No.61 of 2009 fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)