( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1992 OF 2008 1. Yograj s/o Totaram Wankhedkar 2. Sunil s/o Gulab Mahire, Both r/o c/o Khushbo Tailors, Aazadnagar, Camp No. 2, Ulhasnagar, Dist. Thane. 3. Govardhan s/o Sambu Birare, R/o Nuban, Dist. Nandurbar. APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. Vimalbai w/o Vasant Mahire, R/o Talve, Tq. Taloda, District Nandurbar. 2. The State of Maharashtra, through Police Inspector, Taloda Police Station, Taloda, District Nandurbar. RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1993 OF 2008 1. Yograj ns/o Totaram Wankhedkar 2. Gulab s/o Hari Mahire, Both r/o c/o Khushbo Tailors, Azadnagar, Camp No. 2., Ulhasnagar, Dist. Thane. 3. Govardhan s/o Sambu Birare 4. Tejabai w/o Govardhan Birare Both r/o Nuban, Post Borad, Tq. Taloda, Dist. Nandurbar. 5. Sunil s/o Gulab Mahire 6. Aarunabai w/o Yograj Wankhedkar Both r/o c/o Khushbo Tailors, Azadnagar, Camp No.2, Ulhasnagar, District Thane APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. Vimalbai w/o Vasant Mahire, R/o Talve, Tq. Taloda, District Nandurbar. 2. The State of Maharashtra, ( 2 ) through Police Inspector, Taloda Police Station, Taloda, Dist. Nandurbar. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Amit A. Mukhedkar, advocate for the applicants in both the applications. Mr. R.S. Shinde, advocate for the respondent No. 1 in both the applications. Smt. B.R. Khekale, A.P.P. for the respondent No.2/State in both the applications. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 31st August, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, by consent of learned counsel for the parties and learned A.P.P. 2. These are two (2) applications filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the private complaint cases instituted by respondent No.1 Vimalbai. She instituted a private complaint case bearing S.T.C. No. 318/1996, alleging that on 16th February, 1996 at about 10 - 11 a.m., the applicants entered into her parents' house, threatened her and assaulted her. Similar complaint was filed vide S.T.C. No. 767/2005 for offence punishable under section 323, 504 and 506 of the I.P. Code by respondent No. 1 Vimalbai, alleging that during pendency of the earlier ( 3 ) complaint, three (3) applicants visited her house on 23rd October, 2005 and asked her to withdraw the earlier complaint case. She alleged that they assaulted her when she declined to withdraw the previous private complaint case. 3. In both the private complaint cases, the respondent No.1 named one Krushna Kedar as the eye witness of the incident. 4. It is important to notice that in both the private complaint cases, the learned Judicial Magistrate initially directed calling of report under section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It appears that Krushna Kedar, the sole eye witness of the incident did not support case of the complainant. The learned Judicial Magistrate issued the process without assigning any reason as to why the version of said Krushna Kedar could be discarded and what was the material to corroborate the version of the complainant i.e. respondent No.1 Vimalbai. 5. It emerges from the record that husband of respondent No. 1 Vimalbai allegedly deserted her a way back before about 17/18 years. It appears that maintenance ( 4 ) proceedings were going between the spouses. She had filed the application under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and maintenance was granted in her favour. However, the recovery could not be made. It appears that the husband of respondent No. 1 Vimalbai could not be located. Therefore, the recovery of the maintenance allowance could not be effected. Admittedly, all the applicants are close relatives of husband of respondent No.1 Vimalbai (complainant). It is important to notice that on the dates of the alleged incident, there was no substantial previous incident which could have prompted the applicants to visit house of the father of respondent No.1 Vimalbai. The complainant relied upon solitary version of Krushna Kedar, but he did not support her case in respect of either of the complaint case. It appears that there was no corroborative medical evidence, nor any particular reason to believe truth into the version of the complainant. 6. In respect of the second complaint, filed vide S.T.C. No. 767/2005, the learned Magistrate recorded verified statement of the complainant and thereafter, directed calling of the report under section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, by order dated 31st December, 2005. It appears that ( 5 ) A.S.I., Taloda Police Station, recorded statement of Ganpat Kedar on 6th November, 2006 and noticed that the witness did not know anything about the incident. It was thereafter that by order dated 26th October, 2007, the learned Magistrate directed issuance of process. 7. The steps taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate are rather improper. When it was found that verified statement of the complainant was insufficient to issue process and, therefore, report under section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code was called and that there was no further material to simply act on the verified statement of the complainant, the issuance of process was improper. It does imply that the material which was available after verification of the complaint, was not considered to be worth the name for issuance of process, but the same material was lateron considered as sufficient for such purpose. Needless to say, there is inherent inconsistency between the judicial approach of the learned Magistrate at the two (2) different stages. 8. Learned counsel for the complainant seeks to rely on certain observations in "State of Karnataka and another v. Pastor P. Raju" (2006 CRI.L.J. 4045). The Apex Court held that inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be ( 6 ) exercised for quashing of the proceedings but the same cannot be exercised to interfere with the statutory power of police to conduct the investigation in a cognizable offence. He also relied on observations in "Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS and another" 2006 CRI.L.J. 4050. In the present case, there is no question of interference in the investigation process. According to the applicants, they are roped in the private complaint cases because of their relation with husband of the complainant and because of the oblique motive to ensure recovery of the past arrears of maintenance allowance due from her husband. The private complaint cases instituted by the respondent No. 1 - Vimalbai appear to be without much substratum and may be with oblique intention to pressurize the husband to make payment of the maintenance arrears. Under these circumstances, both the applications are allowed. The complaint proceedings in both the private complaint cases are quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln1992-1993-08 ( 7 )