MUSIN BABULAL THENGADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants in the present matter have approached this Court invoking inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "Cr.P.C.") initially praying to quash the First Information Report No.0005 of 2023 dtd. 6/1/2023 registered against them with police station Killari, District Latur and by way of amendment for quashing the proceeding bearing Regular Criminal Case No. 46 of 2023 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Ausa, District Latur for the offences punishable under Ss. 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC"). The informant is respondent No.2. The applicants are related to respondent No.2 as under :-

(2.) Learned A.P.P. Shri. G.A. Kulkarni, has strenuously argued that the offence under Sec. 498-A of IPC is a continuing offence and therefore, the First Information Report cannot be quashed on the ground of limitation. As regards merits, he contends that the allegations are clear and specific and veracity of the same can be adjudicated only at the time of trial. He would submit that for the present the allegations in the First Information Report will have to be taken to be true and correct and accepted on its face value. Advocate Ms. Namita Thole, who is appointed to represent respondent No.2 advances submissions on similar lines to oppose the application.

(3.) Respondent No.2 to 4 are father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of respondent No.2. We find that all the allegations in the First Information Report and other statements recorded under Sec. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are against applicant No.1-husband. There is one omnibus statement in the First Information Report against applicant Nos. 2 to 4, stating that they had demanded Rs.2,00,000.00 along with applicant No.1 and had abused her, beaten her and did not offer food to her in order to coerce and pressurize her to fulfill the demand. These allegations are clearly general in nature. They are absolutely vague. The date, time or even tentative period of the alleged wrong on the part of applicant No.2 to