Bombay High Court
Vrandawani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 17 October, 2012
Bench: Shrihari P. Davare
1 crwp447.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 447 Of 2012
Vrandawani w/o Sambhaji Dalvi,
age 39 years, occ. Houeshold,
r/o Dindrud, Tq. Majalgaon,
District Beed ...Petitioner
[Orig.Complainant]
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra,
2] Deepak so Subhash Andil,
age 29 years, occ. Agril.,
3] Subhash s/o Narayan Andil.,
age 44 years, occ. Agril.,
4] Nandabai w/o Subhash Andil,
age 43 years, occ. Household,
5] Archana w/o Vilas Dhage,
age 24 years, occ. Household,
6] Dagadu s/o Kisan Kale,
age 54 years, occ. Agril.,
All R/o Dhagewadi, Tq. Dharur,
District Beed ...Respondents
[Nos.2 to 6 original accused]
.....
Shri S.J.Salunke, advocate for petitioner
Shri B.J.Sonawane, A.P.P. for respondent no.1
Shri C.V.Thombare, advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 6
.....
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:17:38 :::
2 crwp447.12
CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J.
DATED : 17th October, 2012
ORAL JUDGMENT : -
1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the
consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is
taken up for final hearing.
2]
By the present petition filed by the petitioner (original
complainant) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India, she prayed that the order, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2011 on 6.2.2012, thereby
rejecting the said application of the petitioner for condonation of
delay, be quashed and set aside.
3] The factual matrix, which can be summarised, is as
under :-
The petitioner herein is the original complainant and
respondent nos. 2 to 6 are the original accused in R.C.C. No.
123 of 2008 (Exh.'A' to the petition) filed by the petitioner before
the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharur, which was
3 crwp447.12
lodged by the complainant alleging that her daughter, namely
Jayshree married with accused no.1 i.e. Deepak who is
respondent no.2 herein on 31.5.2005. Accused nos. 2 and 3
i.e. respondent nos. 3 and 4 herein are the parents-in-law of
deceased Jayshree; whereas accused no.4 i.e. respondent no.5
herein is the sister of her husband. Accused no.5 i.e.
respondent no. 6 herein is the relative of her husband. It is
alleged that after the marriage, the petitioner's daughter
Jayshree was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by
respondent nos. 2 to 6 herein on account of non-fulfillment of
unlawful demand of Rs.30,000/- for the purpose of digging bore.
It is also alleged that due to the said harassment her fetus died
in her womb, but no medical treatment was provided to her.
Hence, she suffered infection, which resulted into jaundice and
she was taken to Civil Hospital, Ambajogai where doctor
declared her dead on 7.4.2008. Hence, the complainant filed
the first information report before the police personnel, who
avoided to register the same. Hence, the complainant filed
R.C.C. No. 123 of 2008 under Section 498A, 304B, 506 r/w 34
of the Indian Penal Code, before the learned Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Dharur.
4 crwp447.12
4] Accordingly, statement of the complainant on oath was
recorded and the matter was posted for evidence before charge.
The complainant examined the witnesses. However, learned
trial Court held that there was nothing on record to prove that
there was any intention of the accused persons to cause death
of Jayshree and entire complaint appeared to be after thought,
and hence, consequently, the trial Court dismissed the complaint
by order, dated 2.12.2010 under Section 203 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and the said order is annexed herewith at
Exh.'B'.
5] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the
petitioner/complainant preferred Criminal Revision Application
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon
challenging the correctness and legality of the said order, but
since there was delay in filing the said Revision Application, the
petitioner preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of
2011 for condonation of delay along with the said Criminal
Revision Application for the grounds as stated therein.
However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Majalgaon
5 crwp447.12
dismissed the said application for condonation of delay by order,
dated 6.2.2012. Hence, the petitioner has approached this court
and preferred present petition and prayed for quashment of the
said order, dated 6.2.2012 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-1, Majalgaon.
6] Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the
petitioner is a rustic villager and she is a woman and she and
her husband are the sugarcane harvesting labourers and she
remains out of their village for harvesting of sugarcane and they
had gone for the said purpose in November, 2010 and returned
to their village in May, 2011. It is also submitted that the
petitioner was suffering from Jaundice, and therefore, she could
not attend the court. He further submitted that in July, 2011 the
petitioner met her advocate and came to know about the fate of
the complaint i.e. dismissal of the complainant, and hence, after
obtaining certified copies thereof, she filed Criminal Revision
Application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Majalgaon, but since there was delay of about 9 months in filing
the same, she filed an application for condonation of delay.
However, the said application came to be dismissed alleging that
6 crwp447.12
the petitioner failed to assign satisfactory reasons for
condonation of delay. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner
argued that the learned Revisional Court ought to have
considered the grounds put forth by the petitioner for
condonation of delay liberally and opportunity should have been
given to the petitioner to prosecute her Criminal Revision
Application on its own merits, and accordingly, urged that
present petition be allowed.
7] Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 6
countered the said arguments and opposed the present petition
vehemently and submitted that there was substantial delay of
about 9 months in preferring Criminal Revision Application
preferred by the petitioner herein before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Majalgaon, which was not explained by her
satisfactorily, and therefore, learned Revisional Court has rightly
rejected the application and no interference therein is called for
in the present petition. As regards the ailment of jaundice
suffered by the petitioner, the learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that the petitioner has not filed any
medical certificate to substantiate the said contention.
7 crwp447.12
Moreover, learned counsel for the respondents further
submitted that the petitioner has not accounted for the delay
caused in filing Criminal Revision Application properly and no
satisfactory reason was assigned by the petitioner for
condonation thereof. Thus, the learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that the petitioner has failed to plead and
prove 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay, and therefore,
learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application preferred
by the petitioner for condonation of delay and no interference
therein is called for, and hence, urged that present petition be
dismissed.
8] I have perused the present petition, its annexures and
rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties, and at the out set, it appears that the complaint filed by
the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Dharur on 2.12.2010, and thereafter the petitioner
preferred Criminal Revision Application along with the
application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act on 3.9.2011.
8 crwp447.12
9] Undisputably, the limitation period prescribed for filing
the said application under 131 of the Limitation Act is 90 days
from the date of the order which is sought to be revived.
According to the petitioner, she got the knowledge of the order
on 29.7.2011, and therefore, she applied for the certified copies
thereof which were received by her on 1.8.2011.
10]
Hence, considering the said dates, it is apparent that
the delay caused in filing Criminal Revision Application along
with delay condonation application is more than 6 months
excluding the period of limitation and the period consumed for
obtaining the certified copies.
11] In the said context, sight cannot be lost of the fact that
the petitioner is a rustic villager and as per the averments made
in the present petition for condonation of delay, she is the
sugarcane harvesting labourer and she had gone for that
purpose in November, 2010 and returned in May, 2011.
Moreover, although she has not produced the medical
certificate, the averment made by the petitioner on oath that she
was suffering from jaundice cannot be ignored. Moreover, the
9 crwp447.12
petitioner is a woman and admittedly her daughter, namely
Jayshree has lost her life and plight of the petitioner and her
mental condition also cannot be overlooked. Hence, liberal
view is required to be adopted and delay caused in filing the
Revision Application deserves to be condoned in the interest of
justice by quashing the order, dated 6.2.2012 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Majalgaon, and
opportunity is required to be given to the petitioner to prosecute
her Criminal Revision Application on its own merits, but
simultaneously, reasonable cost is required to be awarded to the
respondent nos. 2 to 6 while passing such order and allowing
the present petition.
12] In the result, present petition is allowed in terms of
prayer clauses 'B' and 'C' thereof and the order, dated 6.2.2012,
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Majalgaon
in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2011 stands
quashed and set aside, and the said application is granted
subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- by the petitioner to the
respondent nos. 2 to 6 within the period of four weeks from the
date of this order.
10 crwp447.12
13] Rule is made absolute in the afore said terms.
14] It is made clear that the above observations are prima
facie in nature and shall be restricted to this order only and shall
not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits.
(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE),
JUDGE.
dbm/crwp447.12
