IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1182 of 2009 1. Amrut s/o Bansilal Damade, Age 30 years, Occu: service, r/o Dwarkanagar, near Akbar Talkies, Kandari, Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. 2. Bansilal s/o Rambhau Damade, Age: 68 years, Occu: Pensioner, r/o as above. 3. Radha w/o Bansilal Damade, Age: 60 years, Occu: Household, r/o as above. 4. Surendra s/o Bansilal Damade, Age: 42 years, Occu: Private service, r/o as above. 5. Sunita w/o Surendra Damade, Age: 35 years, Occu:Household, r/o as above. 6. Deepak s/o Bansilal Damade, Age: 35 years, Occu: Nil, 7. Maya w/o Raju Zaware, Age: 35 years, Occu. Household, r/o. Khirkiya, Tq. Khirkiya, Dist. Harda ( M.P.) 8. Raju Zaware, Age: 40 years, Occu: Service, r/o as above. 9. Kiran w/o Hariram Onkar, Age: 55 years, Occu:Household, r/o. Itarsi, Mali Mohalla, Tq. Itarsi, Dist. Hausangabad ( M.P.). 10. Hariram Onkar, Age: 60 years, occu: Retired, r/o as above. ...APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station, Kopergaon, dist. Ahmednagar. 2. Aarti w/o Amrutlal Damade, Age: 22 years, Occu. Household, r/o C/o. Manohar Gulab Bhaisare, Railway Quarter, 570/B, Pune. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.G.A.Nagori, Advocate, for the applicants. Mr. K.M.Suryawanshi, A.P.P., for respondent no.1. Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Adv., for respondent No.2. ... CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 31.8.2009 *** PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for both the sides. 2. In a matrimonial controversy, where the husband feels cheated at the behest of his wife, she having already developed pregnancy which, on analysis, was found to be of 12 weeks, indicating her sexual relations prior to marriage with somebody else, the matter between the husband and the wife could not be resolved. A prosecution is initiated by the husband against the wife and other relations for an offense under Sections 420, 415, 417, 201 read with 34 of IPC. It is alleged, the wife, in order to destroy the evidence culminated against her has, surreptiously, at her parental house, carried abortion. 3. The wife, allegedly, as a counter approached the Police and filed prosecution, implicating her in-laws and other relations who are staying at far off places viz. Khirkiya Dist. Harda in Madhya Pradesh and also at Itarsi, Dist. Hausangabad in Madhya Pradesh. 4. Counsel representing the wife, while addressing, informs if the FIR as a whole is read, it makes out a case against the above referred relations who allegedly resided outside the place of Bhusaval or Kopergaon and at this stage of the matter it should not be terminated by quashing. 5. I quite see that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be sparingly used, it is to be put in acceleration only in situations as indicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Bhajanlal (AIR 1992 SC 604). The seven categories indicated therein are as under: "(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose 265 the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 6. Reading the FIR from any angle, I find that the allegations against the applicant No.7 Maya w/o Raju Zaware, applicant no.8 Raju Zaware, applicant No.9 Kiran w/o Hariram Onkar and applicant No.10 Hariram Onkar and applicant no.6 Deepak, who is mentally ill, they are remotely made, they are not resident of Bhusaval. It is informed, during the present prosecution, Bansilal Damade (aplicant no.2), father of husband Amrut (applicant no.1), expired due to shock of present prosecution. 7. The wife's initiating action against the above referred persons, barring her husband and close relations like applicant Nos.1, 3, 4, and 5, appears to be a sort of oppression and humiliation initiated to settle her scores against the husband. The prosecution as against applicant No.6 Deepak s/o Bansilal Damade, applicant no.7 Maya w/o Raju Zaware, applicant No.8 Raju Zaware, applicant no.9 Kiran w/o Hariram Onkar and applicant no.10 Hariram Onkar appears to be abuse of process and humiliation. Consequently, order: ORDER The FIR, being Crime No.52/2009, registered at Kopergaon Police Station, against the applicant No.6 Deepak s/o Bansilal Damade, applicant no.7 Maya w/o Raju Zaware, applicant No.8 Raju Zaware, applicant no.9 Kiran w/o Hariram Onkar and applicant no.10 Hariram Onkar is quashed. The prosecution shall proceed as against other applicants. Application allowed in above terms. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/1182-09crapl