1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 1607 of 2010 Subhash and ors v. State of Maharashtra and anr -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr Aditya Patil, Advocate for applicants Mr M.K. Pathan, APP for respdt no.1 Mr R.C. Joshi, Adv for respdt no.2 Coram: A. P. Bhangale, J Dated: 13th July 2011 1. By this application, applicants are seeking to quash and set aside order dated 16.4.2010 whereby the Judicial Magistrate, FC, Court No. 5, Pusad has issued process against the respondents also in Criminal Case No. 173 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the complaint was belatedly filed and there is no explanation for the delay. He contends that the complaint case is just a counter blast to the divorce petition filed by the husband of original complainant. Learned counsel also contends that as far as the present applicants are concerned, no role is attributed to them. 3. Learned APP appearing for respondent no. 1 and learned counsel for respondent no. 2 supported the order of issuance of process. 2 4. Respondent no. 2 stated in her complaint that her father-in-law (original accused no. 2) had an evil eye on her and he used to demand sexual favour from her. On 17.3.2009 when he asked for sexual favour and she refused, he threatened that he would complain to her husband that she does not carry out household duties and that she had illicit relations with some outsider. When respondent no. 2 expressed her displeasure over the conduct of her father-in-law before her husband, he did not listen to her and claimed that she was making false allegations against his father. Similar was the reply from present applicant no.1 who is brother of her husband. On 18.3.2009, present applicants no. 2 and 3 instigated applicant no. 1 and husband of complainant Nirmala by saying that she should be hanged else she will not improve. On such instigation, present applicant no. 1 and husband of Nirmala beat her and drove her out of house after snatching ornaments on her person. 5. Complainant has explained in the memo of complaint that she had lodged report on 19.3.2010 itself, but police did not take steps on one count or the other and, therefore, delay occurred in filing complaint case. 6. Prima facie involvement of the applicants is very much clear. This is not a fit case where inherent powers vested with this Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. which are to be used sparingly and in deserving cases only, should be exercised. Application deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly 3 dismissed. If the applicants apply for discharge in the complaint case, the Court concerned shall decide such application in accordance with law and strictly on its own merit. JUDGE joshi