1 cr-wp-2998-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.W.P. NO. 2998 OF 2010 IN CASE NO.2253/PW/2010 IN C.R.NO.109/10 (VERSOVA POLICE STATION) Nesar Ahmed and Anr. ..Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents .... Mr. D.Dwivedi Adv. for Petitioners Ms. Ansu Geogy Jacob i/b Geogy Jacob and Associates for Respondent No.2 Mr. S.A.Shaikh APP for State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : OCTOBER 21, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners-original accused nos.2 and 3, the learned APP for the State and the learned advocate for the respondent no.2-original complainant. 2 cr-wp-2998-10 2 The petitioners are seeking quashing of Case No. 2253/PW/2010 pending before the Railway Mobile Court at Andheri, Mumbai. The said case pertains to CR No. 109 of 2010 of Versova Police Station. The case is under Section 498-A r.w. 34 of IPC. 3 The learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the complainant was residing with her husband in Mumbai whereas both the petitioners were residing in Kolkata, hence, there was no question of the petitioners mentally or physically harassing or treating the complainant with cruelty. He further submitted that in 2006, the complainant had sent a letter to the petitioners stating that she has received very good treatment from them; he submitted that this shows that there was no illtreatment or harassment by the petitioners to the complainant. 4 I have perused the FIR in the present case. In the FIR, it is specifically stated by the complainant that her husband was having an affair with an actress Madhu Sharma. She informed her in laws i.e. the present petitioners about this fact, however, both of them abused her and told her that whatever their son is doing, is correct. From the year 2007 they started mentally and physically harassing her on the ground that flat nos. 101 and 104 in Bhanu Apartment, Vile Parle which stood in 3 cr-wp-2998-10 the name of her father, should be made in the name of her husband. 5 Thereupon, the learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that Rs.30 lakhs had been paid by cheque by the petitioners towards the 101 flat in Bhanu Apartment and he has placed reliance on an agreement dated 17.1.2006. The learned advocate for the complainant stated that the transaction did not go through and the said amount was given to the son of the petitioners to use the same in his business. She has placed reliance on a letter dated 24.1.2006. The learned advocate for the petitioners has also stated that Rs.55 lakhs was in fact given by the son of the petitioners to father of the complainant, in such case, there was no question of the petitioners demanding amount or flat from the complainant or her parents. In reply, the learned advocate for the respondent no.2 stated that the amount was given for giving good publicity and to promote the son of the petitioners as a film actor. She in turn relied upon an agreement to support this contention. It is seen that the facts are disputed and in such case, it would be necessary to lead evidence and only then, it can be decided what are the true facts. 6 So far as the contention that the petitioners were staying in Kolkata hence, it was not possible for them to cause any mental or 4 cr-wp-2998-10 physical harassment to the complainant who was residing in Mumbai is concerned, it is observed that in the FIR the complainant has stated that she had gone to Kolkata and when she was residing there with the petitioners, mental and physical harassment was caused to her in relation to the transferring of the flat in the name of her husband. 7 The learned advocate for the Petitioners has placed reliance on a letter dated 14.12.2008 purportedly written by the complainant to Versova Police Station wherein she has stated that she had talk that her husband had love affair with Madhu Sharma with her in laws on telephone. He submitted that this letter shows that at no point of time, the complainant had gone to Kolkata, hence, there is no question of the petitioners illtreating the respondent no. 2. However, in the said letter, I have noted that the complainant has stated that her in laws spoke to her very rudely on telephone and they told her that they have deserted her forever and their son will marry Madhu Sharma. It is pertinent to note that in para 8 of the letter, she has stated she had visited her in laws in Calcutta and they confirmed the demand for flat made by her husband and they became aggressive. She has further stated that on the event of the release of her father ’s film “Sun Zara ” on 24.2.2006, her father in law and mother in law again demanded that the flat be 5 cr-wp-2998-10 transferred. Thus, this letter does not help the petitioners. 8 On perusal of the FIR, prima facie case is made out under Section 498-A of IPC, thus, no case is made out for quashing the case. Hence, petition is rejected. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]