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 00:18:46 :::
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 00:18:46 :::
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 00:18:46 :::
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 00:18:46 :::
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 00:18:46 :::
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 00:18:46 :::