1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2100 OF 2009 1. Prakash S/o.Subhash Buwa, Age-25 years, Occu-Business, 2. Subhash S/o.Nagnath Buwa, Age-55 years, Occu-Business, 3. Chhaya W/o.Subhashnath Buwa, Age-50 years, Occu-Household, 4. Shivnath Nagnath Buwa, Age-50 years, Occu-Business, 5. Amarnath Eknath Buwa, Age-45 years, Occu-Business, 6. Mahadev Motinath Ghorpade, Age-35 years, Occu-Business, 7. Archana W/o.Mahadev Ghorpade, Age-30 years, Occu-Household, 8. Amol S/o.Subhashnath Buwa, Age-18 years, Occu-Business, 9. Sangita Amarnath Buwa, Age-35 years, Occu-Household, All are R/o.Ujani, Tq.Ausa, Dist. Latur APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, 2 2. Kalpana W/o.Prakash Buwa, Age-20 years, Occu-Household, Ujani, Tq.Ausa, Dist. Latur, At present residing at Ramjinagar, Soyegaon, Tq.Soyegaon, Dist. Aurangabad RESPONDENTS Smt.S.S.Jadhav, learned counsel for applicants. Mr.N.B.Patil, learned APP for respondent State. Mr.B.S.Shinde, learned counsel for respondent no.2 original complainant. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 18/01/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the order of process issued against the applicants vide order dated 06/05/2009 for the alleged offence u/s. 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC in the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent numbered as RCC No.46/2009. 2. Considering the small issue involved in this matter, Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the application is heard forthwith at the stage of admission itself. 3. Considering the submissions across the bar, it appears that the 2nd respondent got married with the first applicant on 14/05/2007. At that time, 2nd respondent was taking education in higher secondary school. The examination of the board was 3 scheduled somewhere in the month of February 2008. It appears that on the request of 2nd respondent and her parents, first applicant and his parents allowed 2nd respondent to stay at her parents house since January 2008 to complete the study and to give the examination. It appears that after the examination was over, the 2nd respondent returned to the house of first applicant. It is alleged that somewhere in the first week of March 2009, as there were frequent quarrels took place between the applicant side and 2nd respondent, 2nd respondent returned back to her parents house. Thereafter, on the allegations that there is demand of Rs.1,00,000/- dowry at the hands of first applicant and his relatives, who are arrayed as an accused including all the relatives of the first applicant, complaint came to be lodged initially in Soyegaon Police Station, but as no cognizance is taken, private complaint came to be lodged in the court of J.M.F.C.Soyegaon, which was numbered as RCC No.33/2009 wherein the cause of action of alleged incident on 13/02/2009 took place at Soyegaon, while all the earlier instances took place at the matrimonial house of 2nd respondent at Ujani. 4. During the course of submissions across the bar, two points are raised before this Court. After initial complaint was lodged and after recording the verification statement, the complaint was referred for investigation u/s. 202 of Cr.P.C. The report was made returnable on 04/05/2009. It is urged that as the mother of 2nd respondent was working as police constable in Soyegaon Police Station, the complaint came to be lodged in the Soyegaon Court as well as send for 4 investigation in Soyegaon Police Station. Considering the allegations in the complaint, only one incident alleged to have taken place at Soyegaon while rest of the instances took place at the matrimonial house at Ujani, Tal. Ausa which is situated at the distance of at around 350 kms. from Soyegaon. It is the statement across the bar that during the investigation carried out of which the report was submitted before the Court, of which the cognizance was taken by the learned J.M.F.C. and issued process against all these applicants, the police from Soyegaon have not visited Ujani or no investigation is carried out by Ujani Police to find out the truth in the allegations about any harassment to the 2nd respondent at the hands of relatives of applicant and applicant himself at Ujani. In the premise, it is urged that first on the ground of jurisdiction that the Soyegaon police can not investigate the said offence and second as no investigation is carried out at Ujani, issuance of process against all the applicants be quashed and set aside. 5. During the course of submissions by learned APP appearing for the State, straightway he placed the report of investigation carried out as per the order of learned J.M.F.C. Soyegaon in my hand. The fact remains that on perusal of this report, the statement of the witnesses who are residing at Soyegaon were recorded, but not a single witness from Ujani was recorded during this investigation. 6. During the course of submissions, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent relying on the rulling reported in AIR 1997 SC 5 2465 in the matter of Smt.Sujata Mukherjee versus Prashantkuma Mukherjee, wherein in para no.7 scope of section 178(b) and (c) of The Cr.P.C. is discussed. 7. Considering these submissions across the bar and the provisions as laid down u/s. 178(b) as well as (c) of The Cr.P.C., if the alleged incident took place within the jurisdiction of 2 different police stations, then either of the police station or either of the Court can take cognizance of the alleged offence. 8. On clear perusal of the report, on which the order of issuance of process came to be passed by the learned J.M.F.C. it indicates that the statement of witnesses from Soyegaon about the single incident were recorded. These statements were of the interested persons as the mother of 2nd respondent is working as police constable in Soyegaon Police Station which fact can not be disputed The major part about the allegations of the 2nd respondent allegedly took place at Ujani at the house of applicants. In absence of examination of a single witness from Ujani, it can not be said that report prima facie discloses the offence at the hands of these applicants. The report itself is insufficient to draw this inference, as not a single witness from Ujani was examined when the complaint was sent for investigation u/s. 202 of The Cr.P.C. 9. In the premise, considering the order of issuance of process against all these applicants is bad in law, even though it is to be held 6 against first applicant only. Hence the order of issuance of process against the applicants other than applicant no.1 is liable to be quashed and set aside and accordingly it is quashed and set aside. 10. In the premise, the application is partly succeeded against the applicants other than applicant no.1. The order of issuance of process for an offence punishable u/s.498(A), 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC issued against the applicants other than applicant no.1 failed. 11. Rule is thus made absolute as indicated above. Trial to proceed only against the applicant no.1. 12. Application stands disposed of in terms of above order. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JAN 2010/cri.appl.2100-09