1 (Crim appln 2982 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2982 OF 2010 Ms.Dorothy Behram Mehta ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Tarang Sayyed and Sarataj Shaikh for Applicant Mr.D.R. More-APP for the State MR.H.S.S. Murthy i/b. Ms.P.M. Bhansali for Respondent No.2 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 7TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant, learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 2. This application is filed for quashing the FIR which is registered vide C.R. No. 80 of 2010 dated 30.4.2010 which is registered with Azad Maidan Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 448, 323, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. According to the Applicant, she is the wife of the 2 (Crim appln 2982 of 2010) Respondent No.2 and she is in possession of a flat in Roxana Building, being flat No.12, 5 th Floor situated at M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020. 4. It is the case of the Applicant that the Respondent No.2 is trying to dispossess her and, therefore, she filed a suit in the City Civil Court and an ad-interim relief was granted, protecting her possession on 27.4.2010. It is submitted that after the said interim order was passed, an FIR was registered on 30.4.2010 at Azad Maidan Police Station. 5. The learned counsel for the Applicant has invited my attention to the interim order which was passed and it was submitted that in the said order, there is a clear reference of prima facie case was made by the Applicant that she was in possession of the premises on the basis of the documents which were produced by her in the City Civil Court. Ad-interim relief was granted by this Court on 22 nd July, 2010. 6. Thereafter, an application was made for vacating the ad-interim relief and by order dated 6 th August, 2010, it was clarified that the investigation of the said offence is not stayed. Detailed affidavit in reply has been filed by the Respondent No.2. 3 (Crim appln 2982 of 2010) 7. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that the ad-interim order which was obtained by the Applicant by suppressing material facts, was vacated by the City Civil Court by a well reasoned order dated 16 th August, 2010. He also submitted that the Applicant had filed a petition for divorce in this Court. Thereafter, consent terms were filed by both the parties and by way of permanent alimony, she was given a flat at Colaba and certain amount was also paid to her towards full and final settlement of her claim. Thereafter, the matter was transferred to the Family Court at Bandra and divorce by mutual consent was granted. An order was passed in terms of the consent terms. It is submitted that therefore, the Applicant has no claim over the said property as she has illegally entered in the said premises. 8. In my view, taking into consideration the said facts, it will not be possible to quash the FIR which is registered by the Respondent No.2. Since this Court cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations which are made in the FIR. The Applicant is at liberty to file an application for discharge at the appropriate stage. Hence, the criminal application is dismissed. 4 (Crim appln 2982 of 2010) 9. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that action may be taken against the Applicant for making a false statement on oath. 10. In my view, an application will have to be made under section 340 of Cr. P.C. Liberty is granted to the Applicant. (V.M. KANADE J.)