RAMCHANDRA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants pray for to quash and set aside the prosecution initiated by the Tumsar Police station pursuant to the crime registered as no 219 of 2010 under Section 498 A of the I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. According to them,Tumsar Police have taken cognizance of the complaint without jurisdiction with reference to the allegations for the period from 21 th April 2009 to 14 th June 2009.

(2.) It is case of the Applicants no. 1 and 2 that Their Son Tapeshchandra presently resident of USA is married with the respondent no. 2 Payal since 8 th April 2009.Applicant no.

(3.) Sau Maya is their married daughter resident of Bangalore but is shown resident of Raipur for the purpose of this proceeding. The applicants claim that they have no role in the matter and are likely to be harassed in a prosecution which they allege is bad in law.Applicants claim that there are no specific allegations against them and as such no action was taken against the Applicants by the National Commission for Women at New Delhi.They claimed that during the period between 21/04/2009 to 14/06/2009 Sau Payal was not residing at Raipur and as such no action should have been taken by the Police.It is further claimed that no ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code were satisfied to initiate action. The applicants state that no incident occurred at Tumsar for the police to initiate action against the Applicants. 3. The respondent State of Maharashtra opposed the Application on the ground that the respondent no.2 lodged the complaint against the Applicants on the ground that the applicants had after her marriage made her victim of harassment and illtreatment on the pretext of dowry demands. Investigation is completed by the Police and prima facie strong case is made out against the Applicants and the Chargesheet is to be filed.