MAYA GAJANAN DHAS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed praying for quashing and setting aside the f. I. R. /crime No. I-35/2008 registered at shrirampur Taluka Police Station, Shrirampur on 17. 5. 2008 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r. w. 34 of I. P. C. . Rule, returnable forthwith by consent.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that from the recitals of the f. I. R. it is clear that the complainant has not attributed any role to the present applicant and the allegations levelled against the applicant are baseless and false. The learned Counsel further submitted that there is no illicit relationship between the present applicant and the accused no. 1 - husband of the complainant - respondent no. 2. It is further submitted that the applicant is working as a teacher at Ganeshnagar in the school namely Ganesh Vidya Prasarak Mandal, ganeshnagar, Taluka-Rahata, Dist.-Ahmednagar. She is possessing good reputation in the society. Father of the present applicant is also a teacher. Due to lodging of false complaint by respondent no. 2, the reputation of the applicant is lowered down in the society and, therefore, the applicant is feeling insulted. It is further submitted that the applicant is no way connected with the complainant and her husband. There is no any previous history against the present applicant. From the recital of the F. I. R. it is seen that no any role is attributed to the present applicant. He, therefore, submitted that the application deserves to be allowed.

(3.) On perusal of the complaint, it is alleged that the applicant had illicit relations with the husband of the complainant. It is further alleged that the applicant used to come to the house of the complainant with complainant's husband and used to abuse the complainant. On careful perusal of the contents of the F. I. R. , it is apparent that the applicant was not staying with the husband of complainant in his house. The applicant is working as a teacher at some other place and she has denied any illicit relationship with the complainant's husband. A conclusion cannot be drawn without any evidence that there is illicit relationship between the applicant and the husband of the complainant. Even if the case of the complainant is taken as it is that the applicant and husband of complainant used to talk on cell phone with each other, that cannot be a basis to come to the conclusion that there is necessarily illicit relationship between the complainant's husband and the applicant.