1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. WRIT PETITION NO.2730 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.459 OF 2011 Dilipkumar Mohanlal Suchak .. Petitioner V/s State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Mr.R.V.Govilkar for the petitioner. Mrs.A.S.Pai, APP for the State. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE: 22nd November, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP. Ordinarily, we would straightway allow the criminal application as the petition is still pending for admission. However, that order could be passed if the petitioner was able to persuade the Court that the relief claimed by the petitioner must be granted in favour of the petitioner, atleast prima-facie to issue notice to the complainant. 2. The primary relief claimed in this petition is to quash the FIR No. 309 dated 11.07.2011 registered with the Mahatma Phule Chowk Police Station, Kalyan under section 306, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The argument is that the basic ingredients of 2 the offence under section 306 read with section 107 IPC, are not stated in the FIR. 3. On perusal of the contents of the FIR, it refers to different instances when the complainant’s father as well as his family members were harassed by the accused persons named in the FIR, and which according to the complainant forced her father to commit suicide on 02.06.2011. The FIR refers, amongst others, about the harassment from the year 2006 and in particular the instances which occurred on 19.05,2011, 20.05.2011 and 22.05.2011, which was proximate cause for the complainant’s father committing suicide on 02.06.2011. 4. The fact that the FIR was registered on 11.07.2011, in our opinion, cannot be the basis to quash the FIR in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The argument that all the ingredients of the offence have not been stated in the FIR, also does not commend to us. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision in the case of S.S.Chheena V/s.Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Another reported in 2010 DGLS (Soft.) 498 to support his contention. That decision was however at the stage when the investigation 3 was complete, chargesheet was filed and the Court had framed charge against the accused. Unlike, in the present case, the petitioner has rushed to this Court at the stage of registration of FIR itself. 6. Whether all the ingredients of the offence are attracted or otherwise, is a matter for investigation and if the Investigating Officer is of the opinion that the relevant material in support of the ingredients of the offence in question is absent, he is then free to file appropriate report before the concerned Court. But it is too early to throw out the FIR on this argument, as the investigation is already in progress. In our opinion, no case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out. 7. Petition is dismissed. It is however clarified that the observations made in this order shall not come in the way of the petitioner in pursuing other remedies in the further proceedings, either before the concerned Court where the chargesheet would be eventually filed by the Investigation Officer or the Court taking cognizance including the relief of discharge. 8. All the questions in those proceedings will have to be decided on its own merits, in accordance with law. 4 9. In view of disposal of the Writ Petition itself, no order is required in the Criminal Application No.459 of 2011 and the same also stands dismissed. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)