Bombay High Court
Pournima W/O Bandu Khobragade And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 17 November, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
1 CriWP 1370/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1370 OF 2016
1 Pournima W/o Bandu Khobragade, Petitioners
Aged about 40 Years, Occupation
Service, Resident of Jujau Nagar,
Amravati, Talka and District
Amravati
2 Rama W/o Surendra Gharde, Aged
about 42 Years, Occupation
Service, Resident of Flat No.9,
suma Plaza Apartment, Dwarka
Nagari, Akola, Taluka and
District Akola
3 Mamta W/o Bhimprasad Gedam, Aged
about 58 Years, Occupation
Service, Resident of Bajrang
Nagar, Indore (MP)
4 Sangita W/o Madhavan Mani, Aged
about 35 Years, Occupation
Service, Resident of Bajrang
Nagar, Indore (MP)
5 Manish S/o Yuvraj Bagade, Aged
about 37 Years, Occupation
Service, Resident of A.M.-2-93,
Pandit Dindayal Uppadhaya Nagar,
Indore (MP)
6 Laxmi wd/o Yuvraj Bagade, Aged
about 65 Years, Occupation
Household, Resident of Sukhriya,
165, 166 Prime City, Indore (MP)
::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 13:26:40 :::
2 CriWP 1370/2016
7 Dhiraj S/o Yuvraj Bagade, Aged
about 31 Years, Occupation
Service, Resident of Sukhriya,
165, 166 Prime City, Indore (MP)
V E R S U S
1 The State of Maharashtra, through Respondents
P.S.O. Bhusawal taluka, Bhusawal,
District Jalgaon
2 Suwarna W/o Dhiraj Bagde, Aged
about 30 Years, Occupation
Household, Resident of C/o.
Ishwar Sitaram Borkar, Deep Nagar
Colony, III Type 3/17, Taluka
Bhusawal, District Jalgaon
Mr. H.A. Patankar, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. S.D. Ghayal, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1/State
Mr. Shaikh Naseer, Advocate for Respondent No.2
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.
DATE : 17th NOVEMBER, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners,
learned counsel for original complainant and learned
A.P.P. for respondent No.1-State.
::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 13:26:40 :::
3 CriWP 1370/2016
3. This petition is filed to challenge the order
made by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Bhusawal in R.C.C. No. 436 of 2012 at Exhibit 58, by
which application filed by the petitioners for
discharging them is rejected and also against the
decision of learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Bhusawal given in Criminal Revision application No.36
of 2016 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge
has dismissed the revision filed against the aforesaid
order of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class.
4. The First Information Report filed by present
respondent No.2 shows that she was given in marriage
to present respondent No.7 on 2 nd December, 2010, and
after the marriage, she started cohabiting with
respondent No.7 at prime city Indore (MP). It is her
case that in that house, her mother-in-law (respondent
No.6) was also living.
5. It is the contention of first informant/wife
that after 13 days of the marriage, her father-in-law
died, and due to that, the accused persons started
::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 13:26:40 :::
4 CriWP 1370/2016
feeling that she proved unlucky for them. It is also
her case that after death of her father-in-law, all
accused started harassing her by saying that she was
unlucky for them. It is her contention that, then all
the accused started asking her to bring Rs.2,00,000/-
from her father as they wanted to purchase a Car for
present petitioner No.7 - her husband. It is also her
contention that her sisters-in-law used to visit the
place where she was residing for harassing her. It is
her case that in November, 2011, she was driven out of
the house after giving beating to her by all the
petitioners as the demand of money was not fulfilled.
She was pregnant at that time, and on the date of
complaint, she had a son, aged about 11 months.
6. The contentions and the record show that
petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are the sisters of husband of
the first informant. Petitioner No.5 is brother of
husband of the first informant. Petitioner No.1 is
resident of Amravati, petitioner No.2 is resident of
Akola and petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are resident of
Indore (MP) and they are in service. The residential
::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 13:26:40 :::
5 CriWP 1370/2016
place of petitioner No.5-Manish Bagade, brother of the
husband is shown as resident of Bajrang Nagar, Indore
and he is also in service.
7. Above circumstances show that petitioner
Nos.1 to 5 were not residing in joint family with
husband of the first informant. In view of this
circumstance, it was necessary for the first informant
to give specific instances of ill-treatment against
each petitioner. There is allegation against
petitioners that they were asking her to bring
Rs.2,00,000/- from her parents for purchasing Car and
other allegations are also made against them. As per
Section 211 of Code of Criminal Procedure, it will
become difficult to frame Charge against petitioner
Nos.1 to 5 as no specific incidents with dates or
incidents are mentioned.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that in view of nature of the allegations, petitioner
Nos.6 and 7 are also entitled to get the relief.
Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the
::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 13:26:40 :::
6 CriWP 1370/2016
observations of this Court in Criminal Application No.
5429 of 2014, Kailas S/o Damodhar Pathe and others
versus The State of Maharashtra and another, decided
on 23rd December, 2014. Facts and circumstances of
every criminal case are always different. In aforesaid
case, it appears that the husband had obtained decree
of Restitution of Conjugal Rights. In the present
matter, if the wife had no desire to resume
cohabitation, she would not have approached the
redressal forum and she would not have approached the
police with such grievance. Due to these circumstances
and as there are statements of relatives of wife in
support of the allegations made by her, this Court
holds that petitioner Nos.6 and 7 being mother of the
husband and husband of the first informant are not
entitled to get the relief of discharge. In view of
the aforesaid observations, this Court holds that
discharge application filed by petitioner Nos. 1 to 5
needs to be allowed.
::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 13:26:40 :::
7 CriWP 1370/2016
9. In the result, I proceed to pass following
order :-
O R D E R
A] Petition of petitioner Nos.1 to 5 is allowed.
B] Application at Exh.58 in R.C.C. No.436 of
2012 filed by petitioner Nos.1 to 5 is
allowed and, for that, the order made by
learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Bhusawal of rejection of application and the
decision given by learned Judge Sessions
Court are hereby set aside.
C] Petitioner Nos.1 to 5/accused stand
discharged of the offences for which the
Charge-Sheet is filed against them.
D] Petition of petitioner Nos.6 and 7 stands
dismissed.
E] Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms.
( T.V. NALAWADE, J. )
SRM/17/11/17
