1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 65 OF 2010 Verronika Vinayak Patole, Age 74 years, Occupation Retired, Resident of Nipatniranjannagar, Aurangabad Petitioner V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra Respondent 2. Seema w/o Vivek Patole, Age 45 years, Occupation Household, Resident of Kali Kurti, Shanimandir, Jalna, District Jalna. Smt. A.N. Ansari, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. V.D.Rakh, APP for the respondent No.1 / State Mr. Ram Shinde, Advocate holding for Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the respondent No.2 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 6th April, 2010 PER COURT 1. This writ petition is filed for getting the criminal proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No. 1027 of 2007 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Aurangabad quashed as against the petitioner. 2. The facts leading to the writ petition can shortly be stated as under : The respondent No.2 Seema, daughter-in-law of the petitioner, filed a complaint with police of Begumpura Police Station, Aurangabad alleging offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and others. Pursuant to the complaint, the police registered offence and after completing the investigation, sent a charge-sheet 2 against the petitioner and others. The petitioner made an application seeking discharge, but the same was rejected. Even the criminal revision application filed against this order was unsuccessful. The question, therefore is, whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioner in this criminal case. A copy of FIR is annexed with the petition at Annexure – C and it gives graphic account as to how the respondent No.2 after the marriage to son of the petitioner was ill-treated, abused and beaten up. 3. The case of the respondent No.2 / complainant, in short, can be stated as under: She said, she got married to petitioner’s son in the year 1999. She said, after the marriage, she stayed with the petitioner and others for about 1 ½ year when they treated her properly. Thereafter, she become pregnant and she came to her maternal house for delivery in the year 2001. She said, after delivery, the petitioner and other in-laws including her husband refused to take her back to their house. She said, she made several complaints to the police station, but in vain. She said, on many occasions she went to the house of her husband and others at Nipatniranjannagar, Aurangabad, but at every occasion, the petitioner and other accused abused, assaulted and insulted her. They refused to allow her to enter the house. She said, the petitioner and others thus abused, insulted and ill-treated her. On the basis of this, she initiated a criminal proceeding. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner asserted that there is no specific role attributed to the petitioner in the complaint, and so, her case should be separated and quashed. 4. The Court cannot rely only on the allegations made against the accused in the F.I.R. During the investigation, additional evidence is collected and is included in the charge-sheet. The entire record thus is required to be examined in order to find out whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the particular accused. I 3 went through the charge-sheet, a copy of which is annexed to the petition. There are number of witnesses, who stated that they learnt from the respondent No.2 that the petitioner has assaulted her on several occasions. There is ample material to proceed against the petitioner, therefore, the writ petition would fail. Writ Petition stands dismissed. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) srm/criwp/65/10