1 CR.APL 2820/2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 916. APPLN/2820/2010 RAVINDRASINH (PREMSINHA) [Criminal] AJABSINH PARMAR AND ORS V/S THE STATE OF MAHRASHTRA AND ANR -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr.R.C.Patil, Adv., for the applicants. Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, APP for State. Mr.Pawan B.Pawar, Adv., for respondent no.2. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 10-2-2011 1. Heard. Respondent no.2 married to petitioner no.1 Ravindrasinh on 12.3.2007, having faced ill-treatment, nagging and arrogance, prosecuted the petitioners by filing complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sindkheda, for the offense punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 352, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. An inquiry in terms of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was directed by the learned Judge by order dt.6.4.2010, asking report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. on or before 5th May, 2010. 2 CR.APL 2820/2010 Based on such direction of investigation/calling report, FIR is lodged against the petitioners herein, which has been questioned. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution is abuse of process of law, the complaint and the FIR dt. 8.4.2010, are identical in its letter, spirit and material as there is no change in the script. Counsel submits that Police have harassed the petitioners and nothing of the sort, as has been referred in the complaint, has taken place. 4. Before adverting to the above submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, one should be alive to the fact that it was preliminary stage that the learned Judge has directed in terms of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. It is not that the learned Judge has taken cognizance of the matter. The inquiry is an embryoic state of affairs. On receiving the report, it is the prerogative of the learned Judge to decide in which manner he has to proceed. At this 3 CR.APL 2820/2010 stage, it is inconceivable that the proceedings are abuse of process of law. 5. Learned Counsel for respondent no.2 wife has placed reliance to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of S.M.Datta V. State of Gujrat and another ( AIR 2001 SC 3253), wherein in paragraph nos. 9 and 21 His Lordship have observed as under: (9) We respectfully record our concurrence therewith. Criminal proceedings, in the normal course of events ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage, unless the same amounts to an abuse of the process of law. In the normal course of events thus, quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. The genuineness of the averments in the FIR cannot possibly be gone into and the document shall have to be read as a whole so as to decipher the intent of the maker thereof. It is not a document which requires decision with exactitude neither it is a document which requires mathematical accuracy and nicety, but the same should be able to communicate or indicative of disclosure of an offence broadly and in the event the said test stands satisfied, the question relating to the quashing of a complaint would not arise. It is in this context however one feature ought to be noticed at this juncture that there cannot possibly be any guiding factor as to which investigation ought to be scuttled at the initial stages and investigations which ought not to be so scuttled. The First Information Report needs to be considered and if the answer is found on a perusal thereof which leads to disclosure of an offence even 4 CR.APL 2820/2010 broadly, law courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police since two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere. (21) A long catena of cases some of which stand referred by us hereinbefore in this judgment signifies one principle rule that the complaints ought not to be quashed at the initial stages unless it is termed to be an abuse of the process of the court, the complaint in question, in our view, cannot be so termed as such we do not find any justification for interference with the order as passed by the High Court. The Appeals, therefore, fail and are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 6. Survey of above facts, clearly projects that at this sage it will be a hasty step to brand prosecution to be abuse of process. Consequently, the Application No.2820/2010 lacks merit, dismissed. Observations are prima facie in nature. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/2820-10crapl