SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Maya D/O. Bansi Gaisamudre vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 19 June, 2018

1 CrAppln 93018J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 930 OF 2018

Maya s/o Bansi Gaisamudre,
Age 25 years, Occ. Education,
R/o. Loha, Tq. Loha, Dist.
Nanded. … Applicant
(Ori. accused No.6)

VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra. … Respondents
Through Police Station
Limbgaon, Tq. Dist.
Nanded.

2. Kavita s/o Govind Jaltade,
Age 22 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Limbgaon, Tq. Dist.
Nanded.
Presently r/o. C/o. Vasanta
Prabhuji Kshirsagar, Irrigation
Colony, Patbandhare Vasahat,
Pusad, Tq. Pusad, Dist. Yeotmal.

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. V.B. Dhage.
APP for respondent No. 1/State : Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar.
Advocate for respondent No. 2 : Mr. N.B. Patekar.

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE : 19th June, 2018.

JUDGMENT (PER K.L. WADANE, J)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the

consent of the parties, this application is taken up

for final hearing.

1/5

::: Uploaded on – 25/06/2018 26/06/2018 00:48:22 :::

2 CrAppln 93018J

2. The original accused No. 6 has challenged

first information report bearing Crime No. 02/2018

registered with Limbgaon police station for the

offences punishable under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506

read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The brief facts of the case may be stated as

follows:

(i) The respondent no. 2 (original complainant)

lodged a complaint against the applicant and others,

for the offences as referred above.

(ii) Complainant alleged that her marriage was

solemnized with original accused No. 1 on 27.05.2017

at Pusad. After marriage for about one month the

accused persons treated the complainant well but

thereafter at the instigation of accused No. 2 to 7,

accused No. 1 started demanding more dowry of Rs. 3

lakh.

(iii) It is further alleged that on 30.05.2017

during return journey by visiting the goddess, the

accused No. 1 stopped their vehicle at Loha and went to

the house of applicant (original accused No. 6) with

complainant. At that time complainant enquired about

2/5

::: Uploaded on – 25/06/201826/06/2018 00:48:22 :::
3 CrAppln 93018J
the applicant to accused No. 1 but he did not answer.

It is further alleged that, thereafter applicant

started talking with accused No. 1 daily on telephone.

Complainant again and again enquired about their

relation to accused No. 1. Lastly, accused No. 1 told

her that he has love affair with applicant and don’t

interfere between them.

(iv) It is further alleged by the complainant tried

to cohabit with the accused persons but when accused

No. 1 refused to cohabit with complainant she started

residing with her parents. It is further alleged that

on 22.10.2017 accused No. 1 to 6 came to the parental

house of complainant and demanded Rs. 3 lakh. They also

demanded divorce to complainant. When complainant

refused to give divorce, accused No. 2 and her

daughter-in-law started beating her and other accused

persons instigating them. Thereafter one Shaikh

Mahammad came there and he rescued the quarrel. With

these allegations, offence came to be registered

against the applicant and others for the offences

punishable under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with

section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. We have heard the arguments of Mr. V.B. Dhage,

learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. S.B. Puliundwar,

3/5

::: Uploaded on – 25/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 26/06/2018 00:48:22 :::
4 CrAppln 93018J
learned APP for the respondent No.1/State and Mr. N.B.

Patekar, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

5. On plain reading of the first information it

appears that there are no specific allegations against

the applicant about causing illtreatment or assault to

the complainant. It is also to be noted that the

applicant is not a relative of accused No. 1 (husband).

The offence under section 498A of Indian Penal Code can

be attracted only against the husband or the relatives

of the husband. In the present case, the applicant is

stated to be lover of accused No. 1. So, applicant does

not come within the definition of relative of husband.

Therefore, the offence punishable under section 498A of

the Indian Penal Code does not attract against her. On

perusal of the first information it also appears that

there are no specific allegations of assault, threat or

abuses against the applicant. So the other offences are

also not attracted against the applicant.

6. In view of the above, the application is

therefore liable to be allowed. Hence, following order

is passed.

ORDER

1 The application is allowed.

4/5

::: Uploaded on – 25/06/2018 26/06/2018 00:48:22 :::
5 CrAppln 93018J
2 Relief is granted in terms of prayer clause

‘B’ only in respect of present applicant.

7. Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms.

(K. L. WADANE, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)

mkd

5/5

::: Uploaded on – 25/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 26/06/2018 00:48:22 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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 read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation