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 :::