SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sourabh Shriniwas Joshi And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 15 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Bombay High Court

Sourabh Shriniwas Joshi And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 15 February, 2024

Bench: Prakash D. Naik, N.R. Borkar

2024:BHC-AS:9217-DB

5-WP-12-2022.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12 OF 2022
Sourabh Shriniwas Joshi and others … Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and another … Respondents
………
Mr. Ravindra Pachundkar for the Petitioners.
Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State.
Mr. S.S. Redkar for Respondent No.2.
………
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK
N.R. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED : 15th FEBRUARY 2024

P.C. :-
. Heard both the sides.
2. The Petitioners are charge-sheeted for offences under
Sections 498A, 376, 313, 323, 506 r/w. 34 of
Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The First Information Report (F.I.R.) was registered on 3 rd October 2021
with Chinchwad Police Station vide Crime No.318 of 2021. On
completing investigation, charge-sheet is filed.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under :
The marriage between Respondent No.2/first informant and
the Petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 2 nd July 2018. Pursuant to
marriage, the complainant joined the matrimonial home and started
residing with the accused. The marriage of sister-in-law of the
complainant – Sonal Sohoni was performed in 2013 and she is residing
with her husband. All the accused demanded Rs.25 lakhs from the

Kanchan P Dhuri 1 / 4

::: Uploaded on – 27/02/2024 28/02/2024 07:52:58 :::
5-WP-12-2022.odt

complainant for purchasing a new flat. The complainant expressed her
inability to fulfill the demand on account of financial status of her father.
The accused ill-treated her, she was assaulted. In May 2020, Respondent
No.2 left the matrimonial home and went to her parents. In September
2020, the accused visited the complainant and assured that she will not
be ill-treated. She returned to matrimonial home in September 2020.
The husband of complainant occupied the premises on leave and licence
basis and both of them started residing together. The harassment at the
instance of her husband continued. She was assaulted. The husband of
her sister-in-law visited the house of the complainant in October 2020
and subjected her to sexual assault. He repeatedly visited her house
when her husband was not there and forcefully subjected her to sexual
assault. She conceived. She was forced to terminate her pregnancy. In
June 2021, the complainant received notice intimating her that she
should remain present in Court. Accused No.1 (husband) had filed the
Petition for divorce. He had installed the camera in the bedroom and
produced evidence in divorce proceedings against complainant. The
F.I.R. was lodged on 3rd October 2021. On completing investigation,
charge-sheet is filed.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the F.I.R.
has been registered out of vendetta. The allegations are concocted.
There is delay in lodging F.I.R. The allegations are vague. The offence
under
Section 313 of IPC is not made out. The pregnancy was
terminated with the consent of the complainant. The form of consent for
abortion was filled up by the complainant which shows that she had
consented. The statement of the Doctor recorded during the course of
investigation indicates that the pregnancy was terminated with the

Kanchan P Dhuri 2 / 4

::: Uploaded on – 27/02/2024 28/02/2024 07:52:58 :::
5-WP-12-2022.odt

consent of the Respondent No.2. The marriage of sister-in-law Sonal
was performed in 2013 and she has been residing separately since then.
She is falsely implicated in this case. The F.I.R. mentions that the
Respondent No.2 and the Petitioner No.1 started residing in the rental
premises from September 2020 and the question of harassment being
caused to her by Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 does not arise. The Petitioner
Nos.2 and 3 are the senior citizens. Petitioner No.4 is the married sister-
in-law of the complainant. They are falsely implicated in this case with a
view to cause harassment to them. Petitioner no.1 has filed Petition for
divorce prior to registration of F.I.R.
5. Learned APP submitted that F.I.R. and the statements of
witnesses spells out the role played by the Petitioners in causing cruelty
to the complainant. There was a demand of amount of Rs.25 lakhs at
the instance of all the accused. Specific overt act has been attributed to
the Petitioners causing harassment to the complainant. Charge-sheet is
filed.
6. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2/complainant
submitted that there is sufficient evidence against the Petitioners to
prosecute them for the aforesaid offences. There was demand of Rs.25
lakhs at the instance of all the accused. The form was filled up by the
Respondent No.2 and accused No.5. It was forced abortion. The
contentions of the Petitioners cannot be accepted at this stage. On
completing investigation, charge-sheet is filed. All the grounds urged by
the Petitioners are to be agitated at the time of trial. All the Petitioners
have played active role in causing harassment to the complainant. They
were abuses, intimidation or assault. Hence, no case is made out to
quash the charge-sheet.

Kanchan P Dhuri 3 / 4

::: Uploaded on – 27/02/2024 28/02/2024 07:52:58 :::
5-WP-12-2022.odt

7. We have perused the documents on record. The marriage
between the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 was performed on 2 nd
July 2018. In September 2020, the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2
had allegedly started residing together in the rental premises. It is also
apparent that marriage of Petitioner No.4 was solemnized in 2013 and
she is residing at Nigdi. These facts are spelt out in the F.I.R. The
Petitioner No.1 has filed a Petition for divorce. The Petitioner Nos.2 and
3 are senior citizens. The F.I.R. and the statement of witnesses indicate
that there are vague and omnibus allegations against Respondent Nos.2
to 4. However, there are specific allegations against Petitioner No.1. The
Respondent No.2 was residing with the Petitioner No.1 from September
2020. The alleged sexual assault is attributed to accused No.5. He is not
before the Court. Considering the allegations spelt out in the F.I.R. and
statement of witnesses, the prayer for quashing charge-sheet qua
Petitioner No.1 cannot be granted. However, considering the factual
aspect as stated above, the proceedings can be quashed against
Petitioner Nos.2 to 4.
ORDER

(i) The prayer for quashing the charge-sheet qua Petitioner
No.1 stands rejected.

(ii) The proceedings in Sessions Case No.404 of 2022 pending
before the Sessions Court at Pune arising out of Crime No.318 of 2021
registered with Chinchwad Police Station are quashed as against
Petitioner Nos.2 to 4.

(iii) Writ Petition stands disposed off.

( N.R. BORKAR, J. ) ( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. )

Kanchan P Dhuri 4 / 4

::: Uploaded on – 27/02/2024 28/02/2024 07:52:58 :::

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
MyNation Times Magzine


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

Recent Comments

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2024 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