SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ramdas Shaharam Akolkar And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 5 June, 2018

1 Application 7040 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

Criminal Application No.7040 of 2017

1) Ramdas Shaharam Akolkar,
Age 59 years,
Occupation : Retired.
R/o Plot No.14, Shivnagar,
Pipeline Road, Ahmednagar,
Taluka District Ahmednagar.

2) Sayanabai Ramdas Akolkar,
Age 55 years,
Occupation : Housewife.
R/o Plot No.14, Shivnagar,
Pipeline Road, Ahmednagar,
Taluka District Ahmednagar.

3) Nitin Ramdas Akolkar,
Age 32 years,
Occupation: Auto Driver
R/o Gangotri Residency,
Tapowan Road, Ahmednagar,
Taluka District Ahmednagar.

4) Swati Nitin Akolkar,
Age 28 years,
Occupation: Household,
R/o Gangotri Residency,
Tapowan Road, Ahmednagar,
Taluka District Ahmednagar.

5) Sadhana Ganesh Akolkar,
Age 30 years,
Occupation: Household,
R/o Gangotri Residency,
Tapowan Road, Ahmednagar,
Taluka District Ahmednagar. .. Applicants.

Versus

::: Uploaded on – 07/06/2018 08/06/2018 01:21:12 :::
2 Application 7040 of 2017

1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Investigating Officer,
Tofkhana Police Station,
Ahmednagar,
District Ahmednagar.

2) Harshada d/o Rajendra Barse,
Age 21 years,
Occupation: Education,
R/o Plot No.146,
Tapowan Road,
Suryanagar, Savedi,
Ahmednagar,
Taluka Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Respondents.

—-
Shri. N.B. Narwade, Advocate, for applicants.

Shri. R.V. Dasalkar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for
respondent No.1.

Shri. R.S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
—-

Coram: T.V. NALAWADE
K.L. WADANE, JJ.

Date: 5 JUNE 2018

JUDGMENT (Per T.V. Nalawade, J.):

1) Rule, rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

both sides by consent for final disposal. Hearing was

given to the learned counsel for the first informant also.

::: Uploaded on – 07/06/2018 08/06/2018 01:21:12 :::

3 Application 7040 of 2017

2) Present proceeding is filed under section 482 of

Criminal Procedure Code for relief of quashing of First

Information Report of CR No.I-225/2017 registered in

Tofkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar for offences

punishable under sections 376, 313, 504, 506 read with

34 of Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(xii), 3(2)(vi) of

the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Offence punishable

under section 417 IPC was also added and by making

amendment of the main proceeding, new relief is prayed

for quashing of the charge sheet filed against the present

applicants.

3) The First Information Report is given by a lady,

aged 21 years (hereinafter referred to as “prosecutrix”)

and she belongs to Scheduled Caste. She has made

allegations mainly against Ganesh Akolkar. Applicant

Nos.1 and 2 are father and mother of Ganesh. Applicant

No.5 is wife of Ganesh. Applicant No.3 is brother of

Ganesh and applicant No.4 is wife of applicant No.3.

::: Uploaded on – 07/06/2018 08/06/2018 01:21:12 :::

4 Application 7040 of 2017

4) It is the case of the prosecutrix that she got

acquainted with Ganesh due to her girl friend and then

there was love affairs between her and Ganesh. It is her

case that Ganesh arranged for a room on rent basis for

her at a place from Savedi, Ahmednagar and there she

started living. She was working to earn livelihood. It is

her case that on 26-12-2016 in the evening time Ganesh

came to her room. He stayed there and by saying that he

was not married he took sexual intercourse with her when

she was not consenting to it. It is her case that

subsequently also Ganesh took sexual intercourse with

her many times and then she became pregnant. It is her

case that on 7-4-2017 by bringing a kit of “Preganews”

Ganesh confirmed that she was pregnant. Then he took

her to one hospital where first sonography was done and

then steps were taken to abort the child. It is her case that

abortion took place on 18-4-2017 in Sukhada Hospital,

Savedi Ahmednagar when she was not consenting to the

abortion. It is her case that after this abortion Ganesh

started avoiding her. It is her case that Ganesh disclosed

that he was already married and he has two issues from

his wife.

::: Uploaded on – 07/06/2018 08/06/2018 01:21:12 :::

5 Application 7040 of 2017

5) It is the case of the prosecutrix that on 5-6-

2017 at 3.49 p.m. Ganesh called her and asked her to

come to his house. It is her case that when she went to the

residential place of Ganesh situated at Gangotri

Residency, Ahmednagar, in the house all the present

applicants were present. It is her case that wife of Ganesh

gave abuses to her in filthy language and others assaulted

her. It is her case that due to this incident when she went

to Tofkhana police station to give report, the applicants

and others pressurized her and promised her to settle the

dispute and due to that she did not give the report in

respect of the incident dated 5-6-2017. It is the case of the

prosecutrix that on 7-6-2017 one Traffic Police called her

to Kohinoor Mangal Karyalaya and there she was

pressurized and there promise was given by father of

Ganesh to give her money for settling the dispute. It is her

case that on 9-6-2017 she was taken to a Notary-Public

and there her signature and thumb impression were

obtained on a document without informing the contents of

the document to her. She gave report on 4-7-2017.

::: Uploaded on – 07/06/2018 08/06/2018 01:21:12 :::

                                            6         Application 7040 of 2017

6) Learned counsel for the applicants submitted

that all the allegations with regard to offence punishable

under section 376 IPC, the offence of deceiving her and

the offence of illegal abortion are against Ganesh and

there are no such allegations against the present

applicants. He submitted that even if the allegations are

considered as they are, they show that the applicants

came in picture only after the abortion. Learned counsel

submitted that the allegations in respect of the incident

dated 5-6-2017 were of non cognizable offence and the

first informant had given statement before police on 9-6-

2017 that she had no grievance against present applicants

and so it was not desirable to file charge sheet by police

against the present applicants on the basis of the same

incident for any offences. Learned counsel submitted that

only to pressurize the applicants, for compelling them to

come to some settlement they are implicated in the

present matter. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

first informant submitted that the allegations show that at

least father of Ganesh had offered money for settling the

dispute and so offence punishable under section 214, IPC,

is committed.

::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2018 08/06/2018 01:21:12 :::

                                          7      Application 7040 of 2017

7) Copy of the statement given to police on 9-6-

2017 shows that the first informant had approached police

to give complaint in respect of incident dated 5-6-2017

and there was allegation of giving abuses and assault by

fist and kicks. There was no record of medical

examination. The alleged incident, in which promise of

giving money was made, allegedly took place on 7-6-2017

and after that statement was given to police by the first

informant i.e. on 9-6-2017. Admittedly, she made affidavit

before Notary-Public also about the settlement. Copy of

the said document dated 9-6-2017 is on record. Statement

of the prosecutrix was recorded by Judicial Magistrate

under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. on 15-7-2017 and copy of

it shows that allegations of only abuses and assault were

made in respect of the incident dated 5-6-2017 and

allegations were that by deceiving her but, her signature

was obtained on notarized document on 9-6-2017. There

was no allegation to constitute offence punishable under

section 214 IPC. Though it can be said that it is a matter

of appreciation, the fact remains that the main allegations

are against Ganesh, who is close relative of the applicants.

The record is sufficient to infer that giving of the F.I.R.

::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2018 08/06/2018 01:21:12 :::

8 Application 7040 of 2017

against the present applicants is a pressure tactics and

allowing the prosecution to go on as against them will be

misuse of process of law. This Court holds that the relief

claimed needs to be granted to the present applicants.

8) In the result, the application is allowed in terms

of prayer clause B-1 to the extent of present applicants.

Rule made absolute in those terms.

                 Sd/-                                        Sd/-
(K.L. WADANE, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)

rsl

::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2018 08/06/2018 01:21:12 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Group Rules, If You agree then JOIN HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh