1 cri-wp-2033-11.doc pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2033 OF 2011 Miss. Farzana Bashir Shaikh ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents Mr. N.M. Godbole i/by Mr. Kamlesh Hadkar for petitioner. Ms. M. H. Mhatre, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. July 28, 2011. P.C. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. We have perused the petitioner’s statement recorded on 23/3/2011. The petitioner alleges that she was forced to perform marriage with respondent no.6 by him and three of his friends and the marriage was subsequently registered under the Special Marriage Act. She also alleges that she is being blackmailed by respondent no.6 who claims to have video recorded her pictures. 2. The record shows that respondent no.6 had approached this 2 cri-wp-2033-11.doc court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1118 of 2011 praying for a writ of habeas corpus so as to seek the custody of his wife i.e. the present petitioner and she stated before this court that she was not in the illegal custody of her parents and the present respondent no.6 had forced her into matrimonial relationship. The said petition was, therefore, disposed off as withdrawn on 29/4/2011. 3. C.R. No. 102 of 2011 came to be registered with the Kurla Police Station on the basis of the petitioner’s complaint dated 23/3/2011. The investigation progress report has been placed before us. The IO has recorded the statements of the three witnesses, who were present at the time of the marriage between the petitioner and respondent no.6 and its registration in the registration office. The other witnesses to the marriage are the neighbours. The IO has also recorded the statement of the Registration Officers. On investigation, the IO has concluded that the petitioner’s story is not reliable. 4. The factum of marriage between the petitioner and respondent no.6 is not disputed and at the same time the petitioner is not interested in continuing the matrimonial relationship. Petitioner and 3 cri-wp-2033-11.doc respondent no.6 are not staying together. The marriage has been registered under the Special Marriage Act. As per the IO’s report, the Registration Officers stated before him that they had not noticed any doubtful behaviour of either of the parties or any witnesses when the marriage was performed and registered between the petitioner and respondent no.6 on 3/6/2010. The petitioner has complained after about nine months and as per her she could not lodge any complaint because of the threats by respondent no.6 on one hand and her father being away in the middle-east on account of a job, on the other. 5. Be that as it may, we expect the IO to submit this final report to the concerned court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate within two weeks from today and the petitioner is at liberty to contest the report and pray for further investigation. 6. Hence, the petition is disposed with liberty as is available in law. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)