1. wp 3349-10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 3349 OF 2010 Chandan Hiranyakant Samant & Ors .. Petitioners Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr .. Respondents Mr. Prakash Chalke with Mr. G.S. Anchan for the Petitioners Ms. S.V. Gajare, APP for the State Mr. H.S. Anand for Respondent No. 2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS & M.N. GILANI, JJ. DATE : 21st MARCH, 2011. PER COURT: 1. This is a petition filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the FIR lodged by the respondent / complainant on the basis of which an offence punishable under Sections 498(A) and 406 read with 34 of the IPC came to be registered. It appears that on 14th October 2010, a charge sheet has been filed in the Court. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the FIR. Upon such perusal, according to us prima facie the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 406 of IPC have been disclosed. Thus, the 1 1. wp 3349-10.doc FIR on its perusal prima facie discloses the commission of the offence. In that light of the matter, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners have urged before us that the allegations in the FIR are vague allegations and the report has been lodge after nerely three years from the alleged commencement of the ill-treatment. It is also urged before us that immediately upon filing of the dissolution petition by the husband of the complainant, the complainant / respondent has filed the FIR which can be said to be a counter-blast to the proceedings initiated by the husband of the complainant. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in 'Bhaskar Lal Sharma & Anr Vs Monica' 2010 AIR SCW 2809, the judgment of the Jharkhan High Court in 'Arjun Ram Vs State of Jharkhant & Anr.' 2004 CRI.L.J. 2989 and the judgment of the learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court reported in 'Hem Raj Mittal & Ors Vs State of U.P.' 2000 CRI. L.J. 561. We have perused the aforesaid judgments and in the light of the observations made by us in the present matter that the perusal of the charge sheet discloses prima facie the commission of the offence against the petitioners, we are not 2 1. wp 3349-10.doc inclined to interfere. The facts of the reported authorities being different, the ration laid down therein would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 5. After having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties to us, there is no merit in the petition and the petition therefore summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. [ M.N. GILANI, J ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J ] 3 1. wp 3349-10.doc 4