1 criap-4641.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4641 OF 2010 1. Dr. Mohammed Nomani s/o Mufti Taher Nomani, age 30 years, occupation: service r/of Bashir Gunj, Beed. 2. Mufti Taher Nomani s/o Waliuddin, age 70 years, occupation : Nil, resident of as above. 3. Ahmed Nomani s/o Mufti Taher Nomani, age 38 years, occupation: resident of as above. 4. Qusiya Begum w/o Taher Nomani, age 65 years, occu, household, r/of as above. 5. Humera Begum w/o Ahmed Nomani, age 33 years, occup. household, r/of as above. Petitioners versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station, Beed, 2. Shabana Begum w/o Mohammed Nomani, age 32 years, occupation : household, resident of Beed, at present Pathri, c/o Bharat Hotel, Opp. S.T. Stand, Pathri, District Parbhani. Respondents ------- Smt. A.N. Ansari, Advocate, for the applicants. Shri N.R. Shaikh, A.P.P. for Respondent No. 1. Shri S.J. Salunek, Advocate, for Resp. No. 2. ----- Coram: A. H. Joshi and A.R. Joshi, JJ. Date : 05.10.2011. Judgment : ( Per: A.H.Joshi, J.) 01. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard by consent. 2 criap-4641.10 02. Present applicants-accused are challenging the registration of FIR (Annexure D to petition) and have prayed for quashment thereof. 03. Heard. Perused the record. It is seen that the FIR is challenged, inter alia, on the grounds that :- (i) All family members are arrayed as accused. (ii) Allegations in FIR are vague and specific acts against accused persons are not described. (iii) The demand for dowry related amount described in the FIR, is also vague. 04. The applicants have emphasized various grounds raised in the petition, inter alia, that, no complaint was made punctually; and that it is belated. 05. It is not to be forgotten that the FIR is not to be read as an encyclopedia. It is also not to be forgotten that the informant is not a legal expert, nor does he possess draftsman's skill so as to give all the details meticulously while filing FIR. 06. Perusal of the FIR discloses that all accused are named therein and that the monetary demand in relation to dowry is disclosed in the FIR. Even ill-treatment by husband, at the instigation of other accused persons is duly described. 07. Therefore, prima facie, there is a case for State to proceed against the accused persons. 3 criap-4641.10 08. In this background, we are satisfied that the applicants have no case for quashing the FIR. 09. As a last submission, the learned Advocate for the applicants argued that the interim relief incorporated in para 5 of the order dated 29.11.2010, and which is continued for a period of more than a year, may be continued. 10. The interim protection granted vide order dated 29.11.2010 shall remain in force till 18.10.2011 and shall come to an end forthwith thereafter. 11. Application is dismissed. Rule discharged. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) (A.H. JOSHI, J.) pnd/ criap-4641.10