1 Criminal Application No.5148/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5148 OF 2010 Sangita w/o Nilkantha Pawar & anr. ... APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri M.V. Ghatge, Advocate for applicants Shri V.H. Dighe, A.P.P. for respondent No.1. Shri B.R. Kedar, advocate for respondent No.2. ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 23rd February, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard. Mr. Ghatge has tendered rejoinder, copy received by Mr. Kedar. 2. Heard extensively. Issuance of process in R.C.C. No. 109/2010 by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chakur is questioned by the applicants, who are sister-in-law and husband of sister-in-law. The main thrust of Mr. Ghatge for the applicants is, when the complaint or a report is moved on 19.6.2010 by Smt. Seema, the complainant, wife of Amar Kale, with specific 2 Criminal Application No.5148/2010 accusations against these applicants having made demand or perpetrated demand of dowry at the behest of Amar Kale, why the complainant did not refer to the event dated 14.6.2010 or prior events when the present applicants allegedly assaulted or caused hurt to the complainant. My attention is also invited to the verification of complainant Smt. Seema, wherein she passingly refers about applicants assaulting her without specifying any date, event or occasion. In the statement of her father Bhausaheb, he adds spices of second marriage at the house of the applicants and the applicants facilitated such second marriage. He refers about assault by accused 11 and 12 necessarily means Babruwan and Manik, but did not refer to any specific assault by present applicants. The learned Judge, based on the statement, recitals in the complaint, issued process for an offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Same is questioned. 3. Mr. Kedar has castigated conduct and manner of investigation by police authorities. He named police officer having associated with the applicants or for that purpose with Amar Kale. He submits that, the report dated 19.6.2010 does not reflect correct position and in order to patch up and stich the same to facilitate illegality, tailor-made statements are recorded from the so called independent witnesses. 3 Criminal Application No.5148/2010 The charge sheet refers to infraction of Section 498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, giving reference to the F.I.R. No.113/2010, dated 19.6.2010. It is indicative that, even the charge sheet does not refer any allegations against the applicant of assaulting the complainant, causing hurt to her. Mr. Kedar may be correct about the fragility in the investigation in Crime No.113/2010. However, at this stage this Court is not called upon to ponder on such illegalities and to comment. Mr. Kedar or the complainant has other recourse to adopt. This Court, based on available material, has to ensure whether there is and there was material placed before the learned Magistrate for issuing process for an offence under section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The discussion of above aspects, coupled with the recitals in the complaint, verification of statemnet of the father referred above, conjointly does not accelerate to issuance of process under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants/ accused. Consequently, the proceedings to the extent of present applicants for an offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code are quashed. 4. This Court has not expressed any opinion on 4 Criminal Application No.5148/2010 genuineness of the complaint or earlier prosecution vide Crime No. 113/2010 nor this Court has opined about genuineness to the statements of the independent witnesses, who did not refer any hurt having caused by applicants. 5. Application disposed of. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE fmp/cri5148.10