Bombay High Court
Pratibha W/O Ashok Davane @ ... vs The State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 30 March, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
{1}
crwp129915.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1299 OF 2015
1 Pratibha w/o Ashok Davane,
@ Pratibha d/o Panditrao
@ Nijlingappa Shinde,
age: 44 years, Occ: service,
R/o Near Dnyanodaya High School,
77, Vishwa Nagar, Vijapur Road,
Solapur, District Solapur-413 004.
2 Vandana w/o Vithal @ Vithoba
Bhaskar @ Vandana d/o Panditrao
@ Nijlingappa Shinde,
age: 41 years, Occ: Housewife,
R/o Laxmi Nagar, Yadgir,
Tq. District Yadgir (Karnataka). Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Inspector,
Police Station, Omerga,
Tq. Omerga, District Osmanabad.
2 Kanupatra @ Minakshi w/o
Milind Shinde,
Kanupatra @ Minakshi d/o Pralhad
Gaikwad, age: 35 years,
Occ: Household, R/o Kasgi,
Tq.Omerga, District Osmanabad. Respondents
Mr.S.B.Gastgar, advocate for petitioners.
Mr.M.M.Nerlikar, APP for Respondent No.1.
Mr.S.N.Patne, advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
K.L.WADANE, JJ.
DATE : 30th March, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.):
{2}
crwp129915.odt
1 Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.
2 Petitioners are implicated in Crime No.248/2014
registered at Police Station Omerga, District Osmanabad, on
22.09.2014, for commission of offences punishable under Sections
498A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3 Learned A.P.P., appearing for Respondent-State,
informs that investigation in the crime is complete and charge
sheet has already been presented to the Court of Magistrate.
4 In this view of the matter, request made by the
petitioners to quash the proceedings initiated against them does
not need consideration. It would be open for the petitioners to
tender an appropriate application for their discharge before the
Magistrate.
5 Petitioners are also praying to quash the proceedings
initiated against them under the provisions of Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. At the instance of Respondent
No.2, a complaint is presented to the Court of Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Omerga, against petitioners and others under Section
12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
6 On perusal of the complaint, it transpires that there
are no specific acts attributed to the petitioners nor any relief is
claimed against them. Apart from the petitioners, who are real
sisters of husband of the complainant, Respondent No.2-
{3}
crwp129915.odt
complainant has impleaded her husband, mother in law and
brother in law as accused. Since neither any relief is claimed
against petitioners in the complaint presented to the Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Omerga, nor there are any acts
constituting an offence attributable to the petitioners, their
impleadment in the complaint is unwarranted. The relief claimed
by the petitioners in respect of quashing of proceedings initiated
against them under the provisions of Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005, needs favourable consideration.
Criminal Proceedings initiated against petitioners in
pursuance to lodging of complaint bearing Criminal M.A. No.40 of
2015 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Omerga, stands
quashed to the extent of petitioners only.
8 Rule is made absolute to the extent specified above.
K.L.WADANE R.M.BORDE
JUDGE JUDGE
adb/crwp129915
