(1) CRI. WP. 1106.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1106 OF 2009 Jalindar S/o Uttam Bhopale and ors. .. Petitioners VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and anr. .. Respondents ... Mr. M.A. Manjramkar, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. V.D. Godbharle, APP for the respondent-State Mrs. Varsha S. Ghanekar, Advocate for the respondent no.2 ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 20TH OCTOBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. By this Petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the FIR no. I-59 of 2009 registered at Shivoor Police Station for offences under section 307 and 498-A r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned Advocates and learned APP. 3. The FIR is challenged on the ground that it was filed after a considerable delay. It is argued that though the incident occurred on 8.7.2009 as per the version of the complainant (respondent no.2), yet (2) CRI. WP. 1106.2009 the FIR was lodged on 21.7.2009. Mr. Manjramkar would submit that such a delay speaks of the complaint being meritless. Mr. Manjramkar would further submit that the in-laws are falsely implicated by the respondent no.2 in the alleged commission of crime. He submits that the FIR amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. 4. It appears from the rival submissions of the learned Advocates for the parties and on perusal of the relevant papers of investigation, that chargesheet has been filed against the petitioners. It further appears that the informant i.e. respondent no.2 alleged matrimonial cruelty at hands of the husband, in-laws and the brother-in-law. She alleged that on 8.7.2009, she was held and the petitioners desired that she shall be eliminated. The FIR itself shows that the respondent no.2 became unconscious and could not gather as to who had taken her to the hospital. It appears that she was admitted in the hospital of Dr. Rajiv Dongare and was given medical treatment. It further appears from the report submitted by the medical practitioner to the Police (3) CRI. WP. 1106.2009 that the respondent no.2 was not in a mentally sound position to give her statement. Thus, there is explanation for the delay in lodging of the FIR. The FIR cannot be quashed only because there is delay in filing thereof. 5. At this juncture, when the evidence is collected during investigation, it is premature to say that no case is made out against the petitioners. The Petition is founded on probable defences which the petitioners may adopt during the course of trial. In this view of the matter, the Petition is destitute of substance and as such is dismissed. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp