SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ramdulari Laxminarayan Varma @ … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 October, 2018

Sherla V.

wp.3986.2016+_15..doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3986 OF 2016

Sunita S. Gangawane Ors. … Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

With
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.466 OF 2017
IN
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3986 OF 2016

Smt.Kiran Deepak Verma Nee
Ms.Kiran Khimanand Pandey … Applicant/
Org. Complainant

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sunita S. Gangawane Ors. … Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3576 OF 2017

Ramdulari Laxminarayan Varma @
… Petitioners
Ramdulari Ramkuber Sharma anr.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra anr. … Respondent

Page 1 of 6

::: Uploaded on – 26/10/2018 27/10/2018 00:18:47 :::
wp.3986.2016+_15..doc

Mr.Sandesh Patil I/b Jeet Gandhi for the Petitioner in both WPs
Ms.Rutuja Ambekar, APP, for the Respondent – State
Mr.Santosh Vhatkar I/b Santosh Vhatkar Associates for Resp.
No.2 in WP/3576/2017

CORAM: Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

DATED: OCTOBER 22, 2018

P.C.:

1. Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable

forthwith and heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. These two criminal Writ Petitions are directed against the

order dated 25.10.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Borivali Division, Dindoshi in Criminal Revision Application

No.30 of 2015, thereby confirming the order dated 22.12.2014

passed in C.C. No.661/PW/2014 by the learned Metropolitan

Magistrate, 26th Court, Borivali, Mumbai.

3. The petitioners in both these petitions are facing prosecution

for the offence under sections 498A, 406, 506(2) r/w section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code. Respondent No.2 is the original

complainant. She has filed criminal case against her husband,

mother in law, elder sister in law, younger sister in law and her

husband. One petition is filed by the mother in law and the elder

Page 2 of 6

::: Uploaded on – 26/10/2018 27/10/2018 00:18:47 :::
wp.3986.2016+_15..doc

sister in law. The second petition is filed by the younger sister in

law and her husband seeking discharge. They are the original

accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5. The husband is the original accused

No.1 and he has not filed any discharge application. The original

discharge application under section 239 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure on the ground that the complainant has falsely

implicated the accused, was filed. The said application was

rejected and the said order was confirmed by the Sessions Court.

Hence, these petitions.

4. Mr.Patil, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitions in

both the writ petitions, has submitted that there is no evidence

against the petitioners. He submitted that the complainant has

falsely implicated the petitioners. Her main grievance is against

her husband. He submitted that the complainant and the co-

accused got married on 11.2.2005 at Goregaon, Mumbai and

thereafter, on 30.8.2007, the complainant lodged a complaint at

Borivali Police Station against her mother in law and sisters in law.

A non-cognisable complaint was registered at serial No.2501/2007

on 30.8.2007. He pointed out that thereafter, she did not stay with

her husband and there was no occasion that she was subjected to

Page 3 of 6

::: Uploaded on – 26/10/2018 27/10/2018 00:18:47 :::
wp.3986.2016+_15..doc

cruelty by these petitioners. He submitted that the orders passed

by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and the learned Sessions

Judge be set aside and the petitioners be discharged.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 / original

complainant, has submitted that the petitioners are the abettors.

They have ill-treated her when she was staying in the matrimonial

home. He has submitted that the accused No.1 i.e., her husband

during the subsistence of their marriage, got married with another

girl and now they have one daughter out of the said wedlock. She

has also prosecuted him under section 494 of the Indian Penal

Code. The learned Counsel has submitted that the petitioners

have tortured her mentally and physically and she was cheated by

the husband.

6. The learned APP appearing for the State has adopted the

submissions of the learned Counsel for respondent No.2.

7. Perused the FIR, supplementary statements of the

complainant, which was recorded in 2013. It appears that the

complainant has made very superficial allegations against the

petitioners/accused. There are no specific instances. Moreover,

she approached the Borivali police station on 30.8.2007 and the

Page 4 of 6

::: Uploaded on – 26/10/2018 27/10/2018 00:18:47 :::
wp.3986.2016+_15..doc

non-cognisable complaint was registered and after enquiry, a

warning was given to the husband, mother in law and the father in

law by the police. Thereafter, she did not go alongwith them as

they refused to stay with her. She went to her father’s house and

then, she stayed with her relatives. There is nothing on record to

show that after 30.8.2007, she continued to stay with the

petitioners and there was any occasion that she was subjected to

ill-treatment. Moreover, in the course of arguments, it was pointed

out that she has filed a private complaint before the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate i.e., C.C. No.843/N/2007 and the said

criminal case filed under Domestic Violence Act was only against

the husband. The present petitioners were not party to the said

criminal case and no allegations were made in the said offence.

The husband is acquitted from the said case. In view of these,

there is no sufficient evidence against the petitioners so that the

charge can be framed against them under any of the offences for

which they are prosecuted.

8. In the circumstances, the orders dated 25.10.2016 passed

by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali Division,

Dindoshi in Criminal Revision Application No.30 of 2015 and the

Page 5 of 6

::: Uploaded on – 26/10/2018 27/10/2018 00:18:47 :::
wp.3986.2016+_15..doc

order dated 22.12.2014 in C.C. No.661/PW/2014 passed by the

learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Borivali, are set aside. Rule

made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

9. Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly.

10. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petitions, Application

No.466 of 2017 does not survive and the same is disposed of as

such.

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

Page 6 of 6

::: Uploaded on – 26/10/2018 27/10/2018 00:18:47 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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