1 Criminal Application No.3341 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3341 OF 2011 Shilpa W/o.Shankar Solanke, Age-23 years, Occu-Household, R/o.Rumna, Tq.Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani APPLICANT VERSUS State of Maharashtra, Through the Police Station Gangakhed, Tq.Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani RESPONDENT Mr.S.B.Bhapkar, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr.S.G.Nandedkar, learned A.P.P. for respondent State (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 29/08/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this application u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant had approached this Court questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Lower Court dated 13/07/2011, rejecting the application for discharge at Exh.11. 3. I have heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.P.P. for State. Also perused the order impugned and the papers annexed with the application in the form of charge sheet. The applicant and 2 Criminal Application No.3341 of 2011 others were charge sheeted for an offence punishable u/s. 498-A, 304-B r/w. 34 of the IPC on the allegations that daughter of complainant by name Shivkanya got married with the brother in law of the present applicant on 30/05/2010. After marriage, Shivkanya expired due to consumption of poison on 05/09/2010. It is alleged that deceased was harassed and illtreated at the hands of her husband and her in laws. It is stated that at the relevant time, this applicant was also residing with the other accused. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and after passing necessary committal order, the trial was committed to the Court of Sessions, where this application for discharge came to be filed. It is urged by learned counsel appearing for the applicant that long back there was partition between in laws of the deceased and the husband of the present applicant. It is also urged that the husband of the present applicant is serving in Army and his posting is at Belgaon. At the material time, she was also residing at Belgaon and have nothing to do with the alleged illtreatment given to the deceased, which resulted in her un-natural death. It is urged that this point was not considered inspite of relevant documents were tendered before the Lower Court and accordingly learned Lower Court had committed an error in rejecting the application at Exh.11 for discharge. Per contra, learned A.P.P. supports the order impugned passed by the learned Lower Court. 4. The Law is settled that the charge is to be framed on the basis 3 Criminal Application No.3341 of 2011 of papers of investigation. Even though it is urged that there was partition amongst the husband of the present applicant and the other accused and mutation entry is placed on record to that effect. The certificate issued by the Army Officer about the posting of husband of the present applicant at Belgaon is also annexed, but to claim the alibi of the present applicant at the time of commission of offence, these documents required to be proved at the time of trial and not to be accepted as a gospel truth at this stage. In view of statement of neighbourer, who is residing in the same village by name Dnyanoba Damodar is recorded, who has stated in his statement that at the material time this applicant was also residing with other accused in the same village. Whether to believe this statement or not, it is a question to be decided at the time of trial and not at the time of deciding the discharge application. As in catena of judgments of this Court and Apex Court, it is held that if the papers of investigation prima facie discloses commission of offence and not mere a suspicion then, those are not the cases fit for discharge, but those are the cases where the charge to be framed. Considering these aspects, application is rejected. Rule stands discharged. It is made it clear that these observations are prima facie and the learned Lower Court not to influence with these observations at the time of disposal of the case. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/AUG.2011/cri.appl.3341-11