Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1205 (BOM)

Rajashree Kokate Marde v. State of Maharashtra

2013-07-02

MOHIT S.SHAH, SADHANA S.JADHAV

body2013
JUDGMENT SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. :- The Petitioner has approached this Court by filing a letter dated 31 January, 2013, which is registered as Criminal Writ Petition No.518 of 2013. 2. The Petitioner has by this letter contended that she had filed Criminal Writ Petition No.1362 of 2012 which she had sought a relief from this Court to pass an order that the Petitioner be married with Prashant Marde, who is working in the Police Department. 3. In the present Petition, she has stated in the letter that she was harassed by persons who had created a false E-mail account in her name and had exposed her to social obloquy. She has requested the Court to consider her grievance in Writ Petition No.1362 of 2012 which is disposed of by this Court by an order dated 22 January, 2013. It is alleged in this Petition that the Sessions Court has committed a grave error in allowing Criminal Revision Application No.679 of 2009 and thereby discharging the accused persons of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 492, 509 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. In the said proceeding, the Petitioner herein had alleged that the accused persons, who were applicants in Criminal Revision Application No.679 of 2009, had created a false E-mail account in her name and had solicited sexual favours. Initially, the accused were discharged by the Trial Magistrate and the said order was confirmed by the Revisional Court. The Revisional Court had observed in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment that the complainant's daughter on 12 August 2008, had filed an application to the effect that she has no objection to discharge the present respondent-accused as it was Mohan Thamankar and Ravi Chavan, who are the persons instrumental in creating her profile. 4. The Petitioner herein has further prayed that this Court shall arrange her marriage with one Prashant Marde. According to the petitioner, Prashant Marde had orally assured her and promised her that he would take the entire responsibility of her and her family and, therefore, she is seeking a relief from this Court that they be given the status of husband and wife in accordance with law. According to the petitioner, Prashant Marde had orally assured her and promised her that he would take the entire responsibility of her and her family and, therefore, she is seeking a relief from this Court that they be given the status of husband and wife in accordance with law. According to her, she has been blessed by her relatives and that the Police Department has supported her and, therefore, she should be given the status of wife of Prashant Marde according to law. 5. While deciding Writ Petition No.1362 of 2012, this Court (Coram: A.S. Oka & A.P. Bhangale, JJ) had called for a report from the Commissioner of Police in respect of her grievances. In the said report, it is recorded that the Petitioner desires to get married with the said police officer, who is already married and is having two children. It is noted in the report that as a result of the conduct of the Petitioner, the said police officer is under an enormous stress. According to the Petitioner, she has wasted 14 years of her life waiting to get married and she wants to get married with the said police officer and she is seeking a direction from the Court in that behalf. 6. In the present Writ Petition, upon considering her first grievance about the judgment and order by which the accused were discharged, this Court had directed the Joint Commissioner of Police, Shri Himanshu Roy to personally look into the Petitioner's complaint either himself or through an officer experienced in cyber crimes and shall get the offence investigated and submit his report within two weeks from 8 February, 2013. Pursuant to the said directions, the learned P.P. had tendered a report dated 20 March, 2013 submitted by the Senior Police Inspector, Cyber Offences Investigation Cell, Crime Branch, Mumbai, wherein it is specifically stated that in the year 2012, Sandesh Chavan had shut down his Cyber Cafe and had sold his old computers and other equipments. According to the report, there was a theft in Cyber Cafe in 2010 and the CPU, Hard Disc and other allied gadgets were stolen and, therefore, it was not possible to investigate the same. It was further reported that Mr. According to the report, there was a theft in Cyber Cafe in 2010 and the CPU, Hard Disc and other allied gadgets were stolen and, therefore, it was not possible to investigate the same. It was further reported that Mr. Denis Soloman had closed his Cyber Cafe in the year 2003 along with the computers and other allied gadgets and he does not recollect as to whom he had sold the said equipments. It is further reported that by efflux of time, it was not possible to investigate into the said offence registered under Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The said report dated 20 March, 2013 has been taken on record. 7. This fact was brought to the notice of the petitioner. She has contended that investigation into the cyber crime is not her main grievance. However, her main prayer before this Court is to seek a direction to get married to Prashant Marde. We have expressed our inability to grant such a relief. At this stage, she contends before us that she had filed several Writ Petitions in this Court seeking the said direction. According to her, she is married to Prashant Marde. She claims relations between Prashant Marde and herself as husband and wife and, therefore, is seeking a direction that the Court shall intervene and facilitate the marriage between Prashant Marde and herself. We have apprised her of the fact that Prashant Marde is a married man having two children and has a happy family of his own and, therefore, she should not disturb the peace of his family. She insists that she also has a right to get married to him and seeks direction accordingly. We have further apprised her of the fact that there is no provision in law under which the Court is empowered to issue the directions sought for by the petitioner. At this stage, she requests the Court to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction in the interest of her family and bestow upon her status of a wife of Prashant Marde. However, we have expressed our inability to do so. 8. Hence, the prayer cannot be granted. The Petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. ORDER For the reasons recorded in the Judgment separately, we pass the following order :- The Petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.