1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.94 OF 2003 PETITION NO.94 OF 2003 PETITION NO.94 OF 2003 Santosh Ghatge & ors ... Petitioners versus Jyotsna Santosh Ghatage & ors .. Respondents Mr.P.M.Vyas, Advocate for Petitioners Ms.S.D.Shinde,A.P.P.for Respondent State Mr.Vijay Gharat for Respondent No.1 CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : J.N.PATEL AND J.N.PATEL AND J.N.PATEL AND SMT.ROSHAN SMT.ROSHAN SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, JJ DALVI, JJ DALVI, JJ DATED DATED DATED : 10th October, 2006 : 10th October, 2006 : 10th October, 2006 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has come to this Court for seeking quashing of the proceedings which are pending in the Court of JMFC, Khalapur District 2 Raigad vide Regular Criminal Case No.85 of 2002. 3. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the respondents on 1st July, 2002 the police registered offences under sections 498-A, 325, 506, 34 IPC against the petitioners on the basis of which investigation was conducted and the petitioners are charge sheeted and facing trial before the JMFC, Khalapur. 4. There are two-fold allegations made by the petitioners. First it is a false complaint and even if the FIR is accepted as true, it does not make out a case under section 498-A IPC. 5. Second limb of the argument is that the specific allegations made by the petitioners against the conduct of respondent no. 2 who caused arrest of the petitioners while he was taking is meal, hand-cuffed him and paraded him from police station to hospital and hospital to police station and therefore seeks action against the conduct and illegal act of respondent no.2. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent no. 1 and A.P.P. Learned 3 counsel for the respondent no. 1 who is the complainant submits that matrimonial proceedings between the parties are going on in various courts and that the respondent no.1 has not compounded the matter. The learned A.P.P. submits that the Court of competent jurisdiction is seized with the case. The petitioner will have sufficient opportunity to raise these pleas in his defence during trial. 7. In so far as allegations about the conduct of respondent no. 2 is concerned, the same is substantiated by affidavits of certain persons cited as witnesses to the incident in reply to which respondent no. 2 has filed affidavit of the same person exonerating him. 8. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the reliefs sought for by the petitioner for quashing of the proceedings pending before the JMFC, Khalapur and seeking a direction to conduct inquiry against the respondent no. 2 cannot be granted as this Court would be pre-judging the issue without affording an opportunity to the prosecution to prove its case. 9. In so far as allegations against the respondent 4 no. 2 is concerned, these are disputed questions of facts and the petitioner can very well take resort to alternative remedy. 10. Therefore, we dismiss the petition. (Smt (Smt (Smt R.S.Dalvi,J) R.S.Dalvi,J) R.S.Dalvi,J) (J.N.Patel,J) (J.N.Patel,J) (J.N.Patel,J)