1 (Crim wp 532 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 532 OF 2010 Baliram Laxmanrao Kendre ...Petitioner Vs. Dyaneshwari Baliram Kendre & Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Milan Desain i/b. Mr.T.R. Patel for Petitioner Mr.A.S. Shitole -APP for the State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. 2. This petition is filed for quashing the complaint filed by the Respondent No.1-wife for the offences punishable under section 494 r/w. 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is submitted that an enquiry under section 202 of Cr.P.C. was held and statements of the witnesses did not disclose the commission of offence. It is submitted that on perusal of the complaint reveals that there were no eye witnesses to the said incident. It is submitted that there is no medical 2 (Crim wp 532 of 2010) evidence on record to show that the Petitioner had committed the said offence punishable under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that the entire cause of action has arisen at Latur and, therefore, the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 26th Court, Borivali, Mumbai does not have jurisdiction to try and decide the said case. 4. It is not possible to accept this submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. It is a well settled position in law that this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under sections 482 and 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be slow in quashing the order of issuance process which has been passed by the learned Magistrate and only in certain circumstances, the High Court can use its inherent powers for quashing the said process as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal [reported in 1990 Law Suits (SC) 701]. In the present case, on perusal of the complaint and the verification clearly disclose that there was sufficient averments to show the commission of an offence punishable under section 494 r/w. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 5. At this stage, it is, therefore, not possible to 3 (Crim wp 532 of 2010) weigh and sift the evidence for the purpose of deciding whether the case under section 498A is made out or not. Hence, it is not possible to exercise an inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the process issued by the Learned Magistrate, who has applied his mind and held enquiry under section 202 of Cr.P.C. and, thereafter, pass an order of issuance of process. Since it is always open for the Petitioner to apply for discharge at an appropriate stage. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. (V.M. KANADE J.)