Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of parties.

2. This application is by the applicant Om prakash Dhondiram Mane, who claims, he was resident of Thakre Nagar, Aurangabad, and was posted at Majalgaon, District Seed, as Police Inspector at the time of filing of petition. Offence under Sections 498-A, 494 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) came to be registered against the applicant and other 13 members of the family on 29.1.2008 vide Crime No.24/2008 at the instance of Maya Ramesh Mane. According to the applicant, Ramesh is brother of the present applicant. Ramesh was married to Maya on 9.7.2012. The applicant has been in service since 1985 and is separate from the family. It is claimed that, all the brothers have been living separately and there is no joint family existing. Still the complainant Maya filed complaint claiming that all 14 accused, on 13.1.2008, had gone to Latur and intimidated her, claiming that if she brings Rs.2 Lakhs she would be taken to the matrimonial home. The F.I.R. was filed claiming that this was illtreatment. The investigation has been conducted and charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur. With the application, copy of charge sheet has been filed.

3. After filing of the complaint under Section 498-A of IPC, the complainant filed yet another Misc. Criminal Application No.548/2010 before 4th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on the same set of facts. In that proceeding, however, it was alleged that, 13 accused came to the house at Latur and illtreated the complainant Maya. In that proceeding under Domestic Violence Act, name of present applicant was not mentioned. In that proceeding under Domestic Violence Act, evidence was led and the 4th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur rejected that application on 28.3.2011, finding that there was no relation between complainant Maya and the accused persons since 1995 and that they have been residing separate. Copy of the judgment dated 28.3.2011 has been filed.

4. The applicant filed application before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur in R.C.C. No.325/2008 arising out of Crime No.24/2008 for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short). It is claimed that, Station Diary was produced to show that the applicant at the relevant time was at Police Station, Shivaji Nagar, Seed. However, the application came to be dismissed without considering the facts. Criminal Revision No.66/2013 was filed, but relying on the accusations in the F.I.R., the Sessions Judge rejected the application. Thus, the present application has been filed raising various grounds claiming that the charge sheet as far as regards the applicant deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. I have heard counsel for the applicant and A.P.P. for the State. It has been argued for the applicant that, if the charge sheet is perused, there are only general allegations made against the applicant. For last more than seven years the complainant Maya was staying at the place of her father and there is no joint family status, but still, in order to harass the applicant, an allegation has been made that on 13.1.2008 the whole family coming from different places, went to Latur just to demand money and to threaten. It has been submitted that, the case under Domestic Violence Act has been filed subsequent to the F. I.R. in the present matter and in the subsequent case, there is no reference to the presence of applicant at the time of alleged incident of 13.1.2008 and there are no allegations against him. There is judgment of competent Court in this regard and the same could not have been ignored. It is argued that, observations and findings in the matter of the proceedings under Domestic Violence Act should be referred in the interest of justice. The argument is that the charge sheet nowhere demonstrates th