Bombay High Court
Meghna Vijay Jadhav vs Vijay S/O Subhash Jadhav And ... on 31 October, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 4047.2016Cri.Appln.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4047 of 2016
Meghna Vijay Jadhav
Age : 35 Years, Occu : Household,
At present r/o. c/o. V.K. Gaikwad
M.S.E.B. Colony, Pachora
Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon .. Applicant
(Orig. complainant)
VERSUS
1. Vijay s/o Subhash Jadhav
Age : 36 years, Occu : Service,
R/o. Z.P. Primary School,
Kosegavhan, Tq. Shrigonda,
District - Ahmednagar
2. Kacharabai w/o Subhash Jadhav
Age : 48 years, Occu : Labour,
R/o. Takli (Lonar), Tq. Shrigonda,
Dist. Ahmednagar
3. Sanjay s/o Subhash Jadhav
Age : 29 years, Occu : Service
4. Jyoti d/o Subhash Jadhav
Age : 29 years, Occu : Service
Both r/o M.I.D.C. Colony
Samratnagar, Wadgaon Gusa Road,
In Devidas Gajbhiye House,
Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar
5. Rajendra s/o Baburao Jadhav
Age : 50 years, Occu : Labour
r/o. Jaykheda, Ta. Satana,
Dist. Nashik
6. Sau. Lilabai s/o Rajendra Jadhav
::: Uploaded on - 08/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2017 00:46:15 :::
2 4047.2016Cri.Appln.doc
Age : 45 years, Occu : Labour
r/o. As above.
7. Raju Tukaram Gaikwad
Age : 28 years, Occu : Service,
r/o Chetna Colony, M.I.D.C.
In front of Garware Chowk
Laxmi Park, Ahmednagar
Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar
8. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents
(Nos.1 to 7 orig. accused)
...
Adv. Shri A.P. Sonpethkar h/f. Adv. Shri P.N. Sonpethkar
for the applicant
Adv. Shri N.R. Thorat for Respondent Nos.4, 5 & 7
APP Shri S.P. Tiwari for the Respondent - State
.....
CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.
DATE : 31.10.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard Shri A.P. Sonpethkar, learned Counsel appearing
for the applicant, Shri N.R. Thorat, learned Counsel appearing for the
contesting respondents as well Shri S.P. Tiwari, learned APP
appearing for the respondent - State.
2. The applicant has filed the present application seeking
leave to appeal against the Judgment and order passed by the Court
of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pachora in Regular Criminal Case
No.250/2008 decided on 23rd June, 2016.
3 4047.2016Cri.Appln.doc
3. The present applicant had filed the aforesaid complaint
against the present respondent nos.1 to 7 for the offence punishable
under Section 498-A r.w. 34 of I.P.C. It was the case of the applicant
that, she was being harassed and ill-treated by the respondents for
non-fulfillment of the monitory demands made by them to her and
her parents. It was also her contention that, the respondents were
pressurizing her to accord her consent for the second marriage of
respondent no.1 Vijay. It was also contention of the applicant that,
respondent no.1 Vijay was having illicit relations with one Kavita
Mane. The respondents, of course, had denied all the allegations
against them. The learned Magistrate after having assessed the
evidence brought before him acquitted all the accused of the charge
levelled against them vide the impugned Judgment and order.
4. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that, the
learned Magistrate on some frivolous grounds has disbelieved and
discarded the evidence adduced by applicant. The learned Counsel
submitted that, though ample evidence has come on record showing
that, an amount of Rs.71,000/- and thereafter an amount of
Rs.38,000/- was paid to the respondents, the learned Magistrate has
ignored the said evidence. The learned Counsel, therefore, prayed for
4 4047.2016Cri.Appln.doc
allowing the present application.
5. As against it, the learned Counsel appearing for
respondent nos.1 to 7 supported the impugned Judgment and order
and prayed for rejecting the application.
6. The learned APP prayed for passing appropriate orders.
7. After having considered submissions made on behalf of
the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and on
perusal of the impugned Judgment, apparently it does not appear to
me that, any case is made out by the applicant for granting her leave
to appeal against the impugned Judgment and order. As has been
observed by the learned Magistrate, there was inordinate delay in
lodging the FIR by the applicant and the delay so caused has not been
duly explained by the applicant. The learned Magistrate has further
observed that, though it was the case of the applicant that, she was
being beaten by the respondents, she has failed to bring on record
any medical evidence in that regard. The learned Magistrate has
further observed that, though a serious allegation was made by the
applicant that, respondent no.1 was having illicit relations with one
Kavita Mane, the applicant did not place on record any evidence to
5 4047.2016Cri.Appln.doc
substantiate the said allegation. As has been further observed by the
learned Magistrate, the monitory demands also have not been
sufficiently proved by the applicant. I have also gone through the
evidence on record. Considering the conclusions recorded by the
Magistrate in light of the evidence on record, it does not appear to
me that, the Magistrate has committed any error in rejecting the
complaint filed by the applicant and consequently by acquitting the
present respondents. The reasons which are assigned by the trial
Court in recording the acquittal of the accused appear reasonable,
proper and consistent. Further, as noted by me herein above no
serious infirmity is noticed in appreciation of the evidence by the trial
Court.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to allow the
present application. The application being devoid of any substance
deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
( P.R. BORA, J.)
ggp
