1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No. 442/2007 Sameer Krishnamurty Iyer, aged about 35 years, occ. Pvt. Service, r/o I-404, Pinak Kanchanganga Aundh,Pune. .. PETITIONER .. Versus .. 1. State of Maharashtra, thr. Police Station Officer, Sadar Police Station, Nagpur. 2. Smt. Sucheta w/o Sachin Iyer, aged about 34 years, r/o Girija State Bank Colony, Katol Road, Nagpur. .. RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Mohan Sudame, Advocate for petitioner Mr. D. M. Kale, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 Mr. R. S. Parsodkar, Advocate for respondent no.2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED:- 30 th JULY, 2009 P. C. 1. Respondent no. 2 has filed First Information Report with Police Station, Sadar, Nagpur on 19.04.2007 being First Information Report No. 146/2006 alleging therein that her husband, petitioner and her father-in-law treated her with cruelty and that is how offence in accordance with provisions of law had been committed. The investigating agency had recorded statements of other persons forming part of charge-sheet namely Swati Subhash Kate and others and these witnesses also stated about 2 cruelty meted out by the petitioner to respondent no.2. The petitioner wants that the said F.I.R. should be quashed by invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. I have heard learned Advocates for both the sides. Mr. Sudame, learned Advocate for the petitioner relied upon judgment in the case of State of Karnataka ..vs.. M. Devendrappa and anr.; AIR 2002 Supreme Court 671 and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & ors. ..vs.. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre & ors.; (1988) 1 Supreme Court Cases 692. Relying upon these two judgments, it was sought to be argued that the Court has power to quash the F.I.R. if on reading of the entire record, the Court comes to the conclusion that the case has been filed so as to rake the vengeance against all the persons and that case itself is improbable. In support of this submissions, the learned Advocate for the petitioner had relied upon the preposition in paragraph 8 of the judgment in State of Karnataka (supra). The learned Advocate had pointed out to the Court certain averments made by respondent no. 2 in Regular Civil Suit No. B-24/2007 filed by respondent no. 2 in the family Court at Nagpur being a suit where respondent no. 2 had sought declaration that she has right to reside in the house of her father-in-law. Certain averments in the said suit were sought to be pointed out to show that the father-in-law of 3 respondent no. 2 had made arrangements to see that she is permitted to stay in the house where she is presently residing. Those averments are pertaining to the father-in-law and not the petitioner. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Sudame had further submitted that the petitioner has no concern with the matrimonial life of respondent no. 2 and her husband and the petitioner has been moving from place to place for his job and was never residing at Nagpur permanently so as to have any kind of communication with respondent no. 2 for the purposes of treating her with cruelty. In substance, according to the learned Advocate Mr. Sudame, the F. I. R. is lodged with a view to rake vengeance against the petitioner and case put up in the said F.I.R. is improbable. The said F.I.R. is required to be quashed as against the petitioner. 4. Insofar as the quashing of this F.I.R. is concerned Mr. Parsodkar, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no. 2 had drawn my attention to the judgment reported in Qayyum Ibrahim Mohammad & ors ..vs.. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 120. He had submitted that once the F.I.R. is lodged, the investigation has commenced and the Court could not interfere and quash the said F.I.R. 4 5. I have considered the rival submissions. The F.I.R. lodged by respondent no. 2 in no uncertain terms reveal the allegations against the petitioner as regards the cruelty. Along with the petitioner, father-in-law and husband are also implicated. The statement of other witnesses, as disclosed in the charge-sheet, also implicate the present petitioner. As such the allegations against the petitioner are prima facie made out. 6 Reliance placed upon certain averments in the suit filed by respondent no.2 in Family Court, may not be of any help to the petitioner because those averments do not pertain to the petitioner and they are restricted to the activities of the father-in-law. 7. The stand of the petitioner that he has been away from Nagpur and had no chance to interact with respondent no. 2 is the point to be decided at the time of trial and the said statement cannot be accepted across the bar for the purpose of seeing that the petitioner had no time for interaction with respondent no.2. 8. The judgments, which are relied upon by learned Advocate for the petitioner and are quoted above, will not be applicable to the facts of the present cases. There are direct allegations against the petitioner and 5 the F.I.R. Makes out the prima facie case. The veracity of those allegations can well be decided at the time of trial. Certainly, the petitioner can cross- examine the witnesses at the time of the trial. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, I am inclined to hold that the F.I.R. and charge-sheet make out prima facie case against the petitioner and request for quashing of the F.I.R. Cannot be granted. Hence, the petition is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Hence, the order. Writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE kahale