1 Cri.Writ Petition No.626 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.626 OF 2010 1. Popat S/o.Digambar Nagargoje, Age-45 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Jaywant Nagar, Tq.Bhoom, Dist.Osmanabad 2. Nanda W/o.Angad Wanwe, Age-50 years, Occu-Household, R/o.Bederwadi, Tq.Bhoom, Dist.Osmanabad PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. Vrundavani @ Vandana W/o.Popat Nagargoje, Age-40 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Indraprastha Colony, Balepeer Nagar Road, Beed 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station Ashti, Tq.Ashti, Dist. Beed RESPONDENTS Mr.R.D.Sanap h/f.Mr.N.V.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr.G.R.Ingole, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. Mr.M.R.Sonwane, learned counsel for respondent no.1. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 02/05/2011 PER COURT : 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners have questioned 2 Cri.Writ Petition No.626 of 2010 the correctness of the order passed on 15/02/2010, below Exh.11, in RCC No.112/2009, by the learned J.M.F.C. Ashti, rejecting the application for discharge, filed u/s. 239 of The Cr.P.C. 2. In response to the notice, the original complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in this matter and filed her affidavit in reply. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for respondent no.1, and learned A.P.P. for State. 4. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision in this writ petition can be summarized as : Petitioner no.1 and respondent no.1 were married somewhere in the year 1993. Petitioner no.1 was serving as a teacher in Rayat Shikshan Sanstha at the material time at Kharda, while respondent no.1 was also serving at Daula Wadgaon, near Ashti. It is alleged that the incident took place in the night of 31/05/2009 at the residence of respondent no.1, and because of that incident, she had lodged criminal application no.192/2009 in the Court of J.M.F.C. Ashti, on which, order to carry out the investigation was passed. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court of J.M.F.C. Ashti, and the case was numbered as RCC No.112/2009. At the time of framing of charge, an application was filed for discharge u/s. 239 of The Cr.P.C., which was rejected by way of reasoned order, by the learned Lower Court, which order is impugned in the present writ petition. 3 Cri.Writ Petition No.626 of 2010 5. Perusal of the complaint, particularly para no.6 discloses that the alleged incident of assault so also the illegal demand took place at the residential house of respondent no.1/the original complainant. It is stated in para no.6 of the said complaint that during the night hours, when respondent no.1 was in fast sleep at her parental house, her mother Sindhu and brother Ambadas were present at home. At that time, the petitioners alongwith the alleged second wife of the first petitioner, had been to the residence of the first respondent and informed her that the alleged second wife of petitioner no.1 had begotten a male child and on that count, they all insist respondent no.1 to give divorce to petitioner no.1. They also demanded Rs. 50,000/- towards the marriage expenses. As the respondent no.1 and her relatives refused to fulfill the demands of the petitioner, respondent no.1 and her relatives were assaulted. Then the respondent no.1 tried to contact the police machinery to lodge the complaint, but as the police machinery refused to entertain her complaint, she approached the Court and filed the private complaint. On the basis of private complaint lodged by the first respondent, learned J.M.F.C. has directed to investigate the matter u/s. 156(3) of The Cr.P.C. During the said investigation, statements of her mother and brother were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. 6. It is urged across the bar on behalf of petitioners that there is delay of 6 days in filing the complaint and during the investigation, only the statements of interested witnesses i.e. relatives of 4 Cri.Writ Petition No.626 of 2010 respondent no.1 were recorded and on that ground, learned counsel for petitioner seeks discharge, praying to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate below Exh.11. Considering the time i.e. late hours at night, when the alleged incident in question was occurred, the presence of relatives of respondent no.1 at their residence is but natural and there is nothing un-natural in it. Secondly, whether delay of 6 days, as alleged, is fatal to the case of prosecution or not, is the matter of evidence, to be appreciated by the learned Lower Court only. Considering the material collected during the investigation, which prima facie discloses the commission of offence at the hands of these petitioners and the alleged second wife of the first petitioner, who is not before this Court, I think that there is no fault in the order passed below Exh.11 at the hands of learned J.M.F.C. Ashti. There is no merit in this writ petition, hence rejected with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/MAY 2011/cri.w.p.626-10