cran1381.10 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1381 OF 2010 Afsana Khatoon w/o Mohd. Islam and others ...Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra and another ...Respondents ..... Mr. S.S. Sayyad, advocate for the applicants Mr. G.R. Ingole, A.P.P. for respondent No.1 Mrs. M.S. Jagtap, advocate for respondent No.2 ..... CORAM: A.V. POTDAR, J. DATED: 27TH APRIL, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 By the present application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the applicants have approached this court for quashing of crime No. I-39 of 2008 registered on 28.2.2008 with Camp police station, Ahmednagar and pursuant to the investigation, charge sheet bearing No. 56 of 2009 file on 30.6.2009, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. 2 In response to the notice, learned APP appears for the State and placed on record papers of investigation by way of charge sheet. I cran1381.10 -2- have also also counsel for respondent No.2 who is original complainant 3 This application moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R. so also charge. The challenge is raised mainly on three grounds. Firstly, so far as the applicants are concerned, they are relatives of husband of respondent No.2 and are resident of Bihar, They have no occasion to come to the locality known as Mukundnagar area of Ahmednagar town where respondent No.2 used to reside with her husband. The second ground raised is that the statement of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation are omnibus. Lastly is contended that there is delay in lodging the complaint, as the incident took place during the period 4.11.2006 while the complaint came to be lodged on 28.2.2008. Relying on the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. State of Jharkhanad and another, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, counsel for the applicants prayed to quash the F.I.R. so also the charge sheet under the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The reliance is placed mainly on para 28, 29 and 30 of the said judgment, wherein it is observed by the Apex Court that on careful consideration of the averments of the complaint and the statement of witnesses recorded at the time of filing of the complaint, there is no specific allegations against the appellants in the complaint and none of the witnesses have cran1381.10 -3- alleged any role of both the appellants. As against this, when discharge to be claimed ratio is laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Govind Sakharam Ubhe Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2009 (3) B.C.R. (Cri) 144. 4 In the light of the observations of the Division Bench of this court so also the observation of the Apex Court in the said judgment referred above (supra) I have to advert to the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation. Apart from the statement about harassment, as stated in the complaint, statement of neighbourers were recorded during investigation. It is not necessary to dilute the statement in detail. Suffice it to say that the statement of two neighbourers recorded disclose that after the marriage somewhere in the year 2001 second respondent came to reside at Mukundnagar alongwith her husband and after some time other than the applicant Nos. 6-7 remaining persons had come at that place and harassed respondent No.2 complainant on account of illegal demand of Rs.80,000/- for purchase of luxurious items. In the last paragraph of statement of these neighbourers find reference that applicant Nos. 6 and 7 had been to the residence of the respondent No.2 and her husband. They had also given harassment alongwith the remaining applicants to the complainant. Perusal of the statement of these witnesses disclose that the role played by the applicants in respect of cran1381.10 -4- harassment to satisfy their illegal demand for the tune of Rs.80,000/-. During the course of investigation statements of two brothers of respondent No.2 complainant were recorded, they stated that complainant reported them on phone about harassment caused to her. So also statement of mother of respondent No.2 was recorded, who supports the allegations against theses applicants, as stated in the complaint by respondent No.2, who in turn reported harassment to her mother. Considering the statements of relatives so also neighbourers, it prima facie disclose the role played by these applicants to harass to respondent No.2 for illegal demand. This fact is clear from the statements of witnesses recorded in the investigation which are not at par as observed in para 28 of the judgment of the Apex Court (supra), hence the same is not applicable to facts of the present case. Considering the aspect that prima facie from the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation, discloses offence under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. prima facie, discloses commission of offence. This is not fit case to quash the F.I.R. in the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. There is no substance in the application. Application sans any merit. Rejected. ( A.V. POTDAR. J.) rlj/ cran1381.10 -5-