1 cr-wp-1911-09 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. W.P. NO. 1911 OF 2009 Asif Ahmed Maniyar and Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Tamanna Ahmed Maniyar and Anr. ..Respondents .... Smt. Preeti B.Walimbe Adv. for petitioners Mr. G.N.Salunkhe i/b Umesh Kurund Adv. for respondent no.1 Smt. U.V.Kejariwal APP for State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : OCTOBER 28, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner-original accused and the learned advocate for respondent-no.1 and learned APP for the State. 2 The petitioners are seeking quashing of RCC No. 136 of 2009 which is pending before the learned J.M.F.C. Barshi. The said case is under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of IPC. 3 The case of the complainant is that she was married to 2 cr-wp-1911-09 petitioner no.1 on 9.6.2008. The petitioner nos.2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.4 is sister of petitioner no.1. Complainant has stated that when she had got married to petitioner no. 1, they were informed that the petitioner no.1 was employed in a bank, however, after their marriage, she learnt that in fact her husband was unemployed. When she questioned her husband petitioner no.1 about this fact, all the petitioners started abusing her and beating her. Petitioner nos.2 and 3 told her that if she wanted her husband to get employed, she should get Rs. 2 lakhs from maternal house and on this count, they physically and mentally harassed her. Thereafter the complainant has stated that on 7.12.2008, the petitioner nos. 2 to 4 came to Barshi where the petitioner no.1 was residing and they told the petitioner no.1 that he should not reside with the complainant. Thereupon, the complainant and her parents requested her in laws that they should not break the marriage. At that time, petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4 beat her and petitioner no.2 had held her at that time. The complainant has stated that at that time, all the accused told the complainant to get Rs. 2 lakhs and until she gets Rs. 2 lakhs, they would not allow her to reside with petitioner no.1 otherwise they would burn her and they would get their son married to some other woman. 4 The learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that 3 cr-wp-1911-09 petitioner no.4 is a young girl of hardly 22 years of age. She submitted that as far as the incident of 7.12.2008 is concerned, the only allegation against the petitioner no.4 is that she caught hold of hair of the complainant and slapped her on the face and back. However, that is not the only allegation against the petitioner no.4 because, the complainant has stated that all the accused including the petitioner no.4 had demanded that she should get Rs. 2 lakhs otherwise they would not allow her to stay with her husband otherwise they would burn her and they would get their son married to some other woman. 5 Looking to the averments in the complaint, prima facie offence under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of IPC, has been made out. Hence, this is not a fit case to quash the FIR. 6 Petition rejected. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]