Raju Ramavtar Tungariya And ORS. v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS.

by CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Date:

2023.01.12 10:47:16 +0530 CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4709 OF 2018 Raju Ramavtar Tungariya & Ors.

...

Petitioners.

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

...

Respondents.

--- Ms Rupa Mittal i/b Adv. Ratna Jaiswal for the Petitioners. Mr. AR Kapadnis, for the Respondent-State.

--- CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE AND R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

DATE : 10th JANUARY, 2023.

P.C. :- .

The Petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR, being Crime No.291 of 2018, registered with the Respondent Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Petitioners have further claimed that they are liable to be discharged.

2.

The Petitioners are the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the Complainant i.e. the Respondent No.3. The Petitioner No.1 got married with the Respondent No.3 on 24.6.2012. Subsequent thereto, Respondent no.3

and Petitioner no.1 were blessed with a daughter. Alleging demand of dowry, ill-treatment at the hands of all the Petitioners, a complaint came to be lodged on 10.8.2018, resulting into Crime No.291/2018 as referred above.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners would urge that perusal of FIR would reflect that the ingredients of the offences alleged against the Petitioners are not satisfied. According to her, the Petitioners are falsely implicated in the crime in question.

4.

Learned APP submits that challenge in the petition has rendered infructuous as the Petitioners are already charge sheeted. 5.

We have appreciated the submissions.

6.

Specific allegations in the FIR speaks of demand of dowry by the Petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 whereas, rest of the Petitioners have abetted the offence of treating the Respondent No.3 cruelly. 7.

The fact remains that the Petitioners are already charge sheeted as substance was found after investigation in the allegations made

against the Petitioners.

8.

In the aforesaid background as specific allegations made in the FIR satisfies the ingredients of offences alleged against the Petitioners, in our opinion, no case for quashing is made out. The petition, as such fails, and stands dismissed.

9.

Discharge application, if any moved, be considered in accordance with law as the Charge sheet is already submitted. [R. N. LADDHA, J.] [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]