Pratap Dattatray Ingale And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 10469 Bom

                                                                                       29 APL-1268-22.doc

BDP-SPS-TAC



 BHARAT
 DASHARATH
 PANDIT
                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 Digitally signed by
 BHARAT
                                            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 DASHARATH
 PANDIT
 Date: 2023.10.11
 17:01:42 +0530
                                         CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1268 OF 2022

                       Pratap Dattatray Ingale & Ors.                      ....Applicants.
                            V/s
                       The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                     .....Respondents
                       ----
                       Mr. Mahindra Deshmukh for the Applicants.
                       Ms. Sharmila S. Kaushik, APP for the Respondent/State.
                       Mr. Milind Deshmukh for Respondent No.2.
                       API Sandip Shitole, Karad City Police Station, present.
                       ----
                                        CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE &
                                                   N. R. BORKAR, JJ.

                                                   DATE:     OCTOBER 10, 2023
                       P.C.:-

                       1]       Heard.


                       2]       Petitioner No.1 was married to Respondent No.2 on 16.9.2021.

Petitioner No.2 is married sister of Petitioner No.1, whereas Petitioner No.3 is widowed mother of Petitioner No.1. Out of matrimonial discord, alleging ill-treatment and impotency, offence being Crime No. 482 of 2022 punishable under Sections 417, 498A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered with Karad Police Station.

3] Respondent No.2.-complainant has already moved before the Court below, seeking divorce under the provisions of Hindu Marriage

29 APL-1268-22.doc

Act on the ground of non-consumation of marriage, whereas it is the case of Petitioner No.1 that marriage was consumated. In the pending proceedings, we are informed that Petitioner No.1 has moved an application to undergo medical examination. Apart from above, what can be noticed is, general and vague allegations are made against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

4] From the record, it is apparent that Petitioner No.2, a married sister of Petitioner No.1, is residing away from Petitioner No.1, whose husband is informed to be selected through UPSC as Assistant Commandant, BSF. Husband of Petitioner No.2 is informed to be on deputation with NSG.

5] In the aforesaid backdrop, false implication of the Petitioners cannot be rule out. Let there be rule and further proceedings arising out of the present offence shall remain stayed in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar Sonam and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599.

6] Learned APP and Counsel for Respondent No.2 waives service.

( N. R. BORKAR, J. )                    ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )