1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.433 OF 2009. Anita W/o Anant Raut and others ... Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and another ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.R.Kedar, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.K.S.Patil, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1. Mr.S.P.Katneshwarkar, advocate for the Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 13.08.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner No.1 is wife of deceased Anant Raut. The deceased was a young man. The petitioner No.1 was residing with her parents. 2 The F.I.R. shows that as and when deceased Anant was making attempt to fetch the wife, he was being subjected to humiliation and beating by the inlaws and other relatives of the wife. A complaint was lodged by him, whereupon Crime No. 56/2009, was already registered against some of the assailants. The FIR purports to show that on 20.3.2009, he had gone to fetch the wife but was beaten up by her relatives in the evening. He thereafter, consumed some insecticide or poisonous substance at about 8-30 p.m. and committed suicide. Father of the deceased gave the FIR after about five (5) days. 3. Contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the FIR is false and after thought. He submits that there was delay of five (5) days in filing of the FIR due to time consumed in concoction of a case against the petitioner. He has placed on record copy of a newspaper report pertaining to news published on 21.3.2009 in a local newspaper called "Daily Surajya". The news purports to show that deceased Anant committed the suicide by 3 consuming poisonous drug or insecticide. The FIR can not be quashed only due to delay. The contention raised in the petition are in the form of defence of the petitioners. The newspaper items also can not be read in evidence in view of Section 80 of the Evidence Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners seek to rely on "State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajanlal and others" 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335, wherein the Apex Court has given guidelines regarding the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 or U/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. The well settled legal position is that the FIR can not be quashed only because there is contrary version of the petitioners and certain defences are available to them. The petitioners alleged that deceased was addicted to liquor drinking and always was under influence of intoxicants. They alleged that he committed suicide under state of intoxication and subsequently fabricated FIR is lodged by his father. As against this, father of the deceased alleges that deceased Anant was subjected to beating and ill-treatment by the petitioners from time to time. They use to abuse 4 him and, therefore, he was suffering from psychological depression. It was also alleged that the petitioner No.1 and her relatives had instituted a false case for offences U/s 498-A and 324 of the I.P.C. against him so as to harass him. These are disputed questions of facts. Whether deceased Anant was harassed by the petitioners and ultimately was seriously humiliated and assaulted in the relevant evening, which propelled him to commit the suicide are the disputed questions which can not be entertained in the writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crwp43309