1 Cri.WP.No.802/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.802/2010. 1) Habib Ali Abdul Azizbin Shahab and Ors. - APPLICANTS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra and another. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.Vijay Sharma, Advocate for Applicants; Mr.SB Pulkundwar, APP for State. Mr.SS Kazi, Adv. For Respondent No.2 ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 20th June, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard extensively. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. 2) The Petitioners seek quashment of criminal prosecution, vide RCC No.178/2008 for an offence under Sections 498-A, 373, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, on the file of learned JMFC, Bhoom, district Osmanabad, branding the same to be abuse of process of criminal court and criminal law. 3) Interse relation, between Petitioner no. 2 Cri.WP.No.802/2010 1 - Habib Ali and Respondent No.2 - Aneesa Begum, having married on 7th January, 2001, is not in controversy. 4) The allegations in the complaint, before the learned JMFC, reveal that the accused/petitioner no.1, the husband, is in abroad, working in Engineering manufacturing company, on a salary of Rs.25,000/- to 30,000/-, and visiting abode once in a year for vacation of two months. During such vacation, the husband, allegedly under threats to perform second marriage, humiliated/harassed the wife. The instances quoted in the complaint relate to 29.2.2008 when the wife allegedly was sitting in the house with the so-called witnesses, the petitioner/husband and other three relations allegedly came to her parent and abused, inflicted fist blows and they have demanded Rs. 1,80,000/- else they will eliminate the wife, the respondent no.2. 5) Taking these aspects to its face value, the fact remains, as on 29.2.2008, the husband was not in India he was in abroad. This is so primarily established from the travel documents. This fact is not controverted by the respondent no.2-wife. Several allegations are made against the other petitioners, who have remotely any 3 Cri.WP.No.802/2010 concern, barring interse relations with the husband, the petitioner no.1. 6) Considering these aspects, as the prosecution has been used as a pressurizing tactics to ensure and succumb by the petitioners to the illegal and illogical demand of the wife, such prosecution deserves to be quashed and set aside. Consequently, the prosecution in terms of RCC No.178/2008 is set aside. Rule made absolute in above terms. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/