Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2330 (BOM)

Gajanan s/o. Gulabrao Bul v. State of Maharashtra

2013-11-13

K.U.CHANDIWAL, M.T.JOSHI

body2013
JUDGMENT:- Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Dr. Mahesh, respondent, filed RTC No. 263/2012 against his wife Dr. Nilima, her parents and close relations based on which FIR vide Crime No.9/2012 is registered, for offense under Sections 338, 389, 417, 419, 420, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC. 4. During the course of submissions, Mr. Suryawanshi, on instructions of complainant Dr. Mahesh, has not pressed afore referred criminal case and also the FIR, to the extent of original accused No.3 Chanda, original accused no.4 Hrishikesh, original accused no. 5 Hemendra, and original accused no.6 Kanchan. Consequently, the proceedings qua original accused nos.3 to 6 are quashed. 5. Now, reverting to the role played by Smt. Nilima or Gajanan, we have, prima facie material as illustrated in the complaint petition, duplicated in the FIR against the applicant Dr. Nilima and Shri Gajanan. 6. Inherent power, which is sought to be entertained in terms of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is, naturally, to be exercised to do the right and to undo the wrong in the course of administration of justice. Reading the complaint or the FIR as a whole, it cannot be said, primarily, that as a counter blast to prosecution initiated by Dr.Nilima, she or her parents have been harassed, humiliated or persecuted by Dr. Mahesh. The basic theme of allegations is deception while entering into marital relations by Nilima, organized by her father Gajanan. The facts, cumulatively, prima facie, illustrate a deception, inviting provisions of Indian Penal Code to take its recourse. The facts in FIR require investigation and, in fact, available material at this stage does not warrant to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 7. Mr.Munde, learned Counsel for the applicant Dr.Nilima has placed reliance to the findings recorded by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, in HMP No.149 of 2012 dated 26.9.2013. The findings, indeed, are twisted by Mr.Munde. We have read evidence of Dr.Mahesh for that purpose. The same do not suggest in any manner that Dr. Mahesh, at any stage of matrimonial proceedings, accepted of his earlier knowledge of Dr.Nilima to be a chronic patient of diabetes. On the contrary, evidence in the cross examination suggests that he, indeed, made inquiry about character, antecedents, health, etc. but that does not mean that he had such specific knowledge. 8. Mahesh, at any stage of matrimonial proceedings, accepted of his earlier knowledge of Dr.Nilima to be a chronic patient of diabetes. On the contrary, evidence in the cross examination suggests that he, indeed, made inquiry about character, antecedents, health, etc. but that does not mean that he had such specific knowledge. 8. So far allegations of extortion are concerned, learned Judge, during trial, will take care for the same. 9. Our efforts, in past, to avoid bickering and distrust between the couple, and to ensure amicable settlement between them, considering their young age and status in the society, did not yield any result as all such meetings failed. 10. In the result, Criminal Applications are partly allowed to the extent of original accused No.3 Chanda, original accused no.4 Hrishikesh, original accused no.5 Hemendra, and original accused no.6 Kanchan. However, the applications are dismissed to the extent of Dr. Nilima and her father Gajanan. The observations are prima facie in nature. Earlier interim protection of 72 hours notice before arrest to remain in force till filing of chargesheet. Rule made partly absolute in above terms. Applications partly allowed.