Bombay High Court
Ashish Vasantrao Varade And 2 Others vs Ashvini Ashish Varade And 2 Others on 9 September, 2024
Author: G. A. Sanap
Bench: G. A. Sanap
2024:BHC-NAG:11046
-1- 11.WP.343.2024.Judgment.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 343 OF 2024
PETITIONERS : 1. Ashish Vasantrao Varade, Aged about
35 Years, Occu: Service.
2. Vasantrao Baburao Varade, Aged
about 63 Years, Occu: Retired.
3. Sau. Sandhya Vasantrao Varade, Aged
about 56 Years, Occupation
Household.
All resident of Shree Sai Plot No.7,
Ramkrushna Park, Takali Road,
Dwarka, Nashik - 422 011.
//VERSUS//
RESPONDENTS : 1. Sau. Ashwini Aashish Varade, Aged
about 31 Years, Occu: Service, R/o.
C/o. Dhanraj Laxmanrao Khandre,
C/o. Akotkar LIC Agent, Khandve
Layout, Aamrai Old Wadgaon, Plot
No.33, Yavatmal, Tq. & Dist.
Yavatmal.
2. Pankaj Ramesh Shinde, Aged about 35
Years, Occu: Service, Resident of
Laxmi Nagar, Balaji Society, Yavatmal,
Tq. & District - Yavatmal.
3. State of Maharashtra, through PSO,
Wadgaon Raod (Awadhutwadi),
District Yavatmal.
-2- 11.WP.343.2024.Judgment.odt
**************************************************************
Mr. Mahesh I. Dhatrak, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. Harish V. Thakur, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mr. Harshal Futane, APP for Respondent No.3.
**************************************************************
CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.
DATED : 9th SEPTEMBER, 2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is
heard finally by the consent of the learned advocates for the parties.
Perused the record and proceedings.
02] In this petition, the petitioners have questioned the
correctness of the order dated 8th August, 2023, passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, whereby the learned
Additional Sessions Judge rejected the revision application filed by
the petitioners and confirmed the order dated 4th November, 2022,
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.3),
Yavatmal. The learned Magistrate, by his order dated 4 th
November, 2022, was pleased to direct the Police Station Officer of
Awadhutwadi Police Station to carry out further investigation in
the matter as per Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.PC").
-3- 11.WP.343.2024.Judgment.odt
03] I have heard the learned advocates for the parties at
length. With their able assistance, I have gone through the record
and proceedings.
04] The learned Magistrate passed the order dated 4 th
November, 2022, on the basis of the application made by
respondent No.1 on 25th July, 2022. It is seen that initially,
respondent No.1 filed a report at Awadhutwadi Police Station
against respondent No.2. The said report is dated 23rd October,
2021. It is the case of respondent No.1 that respondent No.2 took
her obscene photographs and videos. Respondent No.2, based on
the obscene photographs and videos, tried to blackmail her.
Respondent No.2, on the basis of those photographs and videos,
extended the threat of transmission of those photographs and
videos to the husband and in-laws of respondent No.1. Ultimately,
respondent No.2 transmitted those photographs to the husband of
respondent No.1, who is petitioner No.1 in this case. Petitioner
Nos.2 and 3 are the in-laws of respondent No.1. In the first report
lodged against respondent No.2, there is no allegation of any
nature against the petitioners. The allegation was against
respondent No.2. The allegation made against petitioner Nos.1
and 2 by respondent No.1 is that, on receipt of the photographs
-4- 11.WP.343.2024.Judgment.odt
and videos sent by the principal accused i.e. respondent No.2,
petitioner No.1 transmitted those photographs to his parents. His
parents i.e. petitioner Nos.2 and 3 transmitted those photographs
to the parents of respondent No.1 by raising certain questions in a
language, which indicated that it was unparliamentary.
05] It is the basic grievance of respondent No.1 that the
police, while conducting the investigation against the principal
accused i.e. respondent No.2, did not carry out proper
investigation. The investigation was halfhearted. Even his seized
laptop was not sent to F.S.L. for analysis. It is also stated that the
mobile phone of petitioner No.1 was seized, but it was not sent to
F.S.L. for analysis.
06] On going through the record, it appears that the
learned Magistrate got carried away by the order passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition
No.119/2022, dated 11th July, 2022, whereby the liberty was
granted to respondent No.1 to approach the concerned authority
for carrying out further investigation. It is seen that the learned
Additional Sessions Judge has also misinterpreted this order. The
learned Judge has presumed that, as per this order, the liberty was
-5- 11.WP.343.2024.Judgment.odt
granted to respondent No.1 to apply for further investigation
against the petitioners.
07] Perusal of the order passed by the learned Magistrate as
well as passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge would
show that, without having any iota of material on record to justify
the complicity of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in the commission of the
offence by respondent No.2, further investigation was ordered.
The principal allegation against the petitioners is that they have
transmitted the obscene or objectionable photographs and videos
of respondent No.1 sent to them by the principal accused i.e.
respondent No.2. It, therefore, prima facie appears that the
petitioners are not the authors of the photographs and videos.
They were even not aware of the relationship between respondent
No.1 and respondent No.2. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1
cohabited for a period of two years. They are blessed with a
daughter in the wedlock. It appears that the warning bell started
ringing for them on receipt of the objectionable photographs of
respondent No.1 with respondent No.2. In this factual situation,
the conduct and reaction of petitioner No.1 could not be said to be
unnatural. The husband was bound to bring the photographs and
videos to the notice of his parents. His parents were bound to
-6- 11.WP.343.2024.Judgment.odt
apprise the parents of respondent No.1. They were not otherwise
responsible for this state of affairs. They have reacted rather
violently on being made aware of the affair between respondent
No.1 and respondent No.2.
08] It is seen that the learned Magistrate and the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, without applying the mind, have passed
the orders directing investigation against the petitioners. In my
view, at the most, they could have been cited as witnesses. The
Police Officer, after conducting the investigation, has filed the
charge-sheet. The petitioners cannot be blamed for lackadaisical
approach on the part of the police while conducting the
investigation against respondent No.2. In my view, therefore, the
material on record is not sufficient to warrant investigation against
the petitioners.
09] Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted across
the bar that the petitioners have no intention to transmit or
circulate the photographs and videos received by them to a third
party. Similarly, they have no intention to further transmit the
photographs and videos, even to their relatives. Learned advocate
Mr. Dhatrak submitted that they are ready to submit a written
-7- 11.WP.343.2024.Judgment.odt
undertaking to this Court that they will not transmit those
photographs and videos to their relatives or a third party
henceforth. In my view, as far as respondent No.1 is concerned, this
undertaking would take care of her principal grievance.
10] In view of this, I conclude that the order passed by the
learned Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge cannot be sustained. The orders show the
non-application of mind. The orders are, therefore, liable to the set
aside.
11] As far as the grievance of respondent No.1 against the
Police Officer is concerned, that can be taken care of by issuing
appropriate directions.
12] The in-charge of Awadhutwadi Police Station shall
conduct further investigation to address the grievance of
respondent No.1 appropriately as against respondent No.2.
13] Respondent No.1 shall make a fresh application before
the police and point out the aspects, which have not been properly
investigated by the police so far.
-8- 11.WP.343.2024.Judgment.odt
14] The in-charge of Awadhutwadi Police Station, on the
basis of the said application, shall carry out further investigation in
the exercise of powers under Section 173(8) of the Cr.PC.
15] The petitioners, as and when requested by the police
for enquiry, shall extend co-operation to the police.
16] The Petition is allowed.
17] The order dated 08.08.2023, passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, in Criminal Revision Application
No.38/2022, and the order dated 04.11.2022, passed by the
Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.3), Yavatmal, in RCC
No.442/2022, are quashed and set aside.
18] Rule is made absolute in the above terms. The Petition
stands disposed of.
(G. A. SANAP, J.)
Vijay
Signed by: Mr. Vijay Kumar
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 03/10/2024 19:57:42
