1

Cri.W.P. No. 1805-2017 (Judgment).odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1805 OF 2019

1.

Cherry S/o Anilkumar Roy ( Gaikwad)

Age : 35 Years, Occ. Service

2.

Dr. Reshakiran W/o Anilkumar Roy

( Gaikwad) Age : 60 Years, Occ. Service

(G.M.C.)

Both Resident of H. No. 405,

Malkhare Vihar 2, Khadkeshwar,

Aurangabad.

Petitioner

V E R S U S

1.

The State of Maharashtra

( Through Police Station,

Jawaharnagar, Aurangabad)

2.

Jagannath S/o Dhondiba Raut,

Age : 67 Years, Occ. Retired,

R/o. Near New Railway Gate,

Shanoorwadi, Zambad Corner,

Aurangabad.

Respondent

…

Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. S. S. Jadhav

Additional Public Prosecutor : Mr. S. N. Morampalle

Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. M.K. Bhosale

…

CORAM : SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J.

RESERVED ON : 31-08-2021

PRONOUNCED ON : 07-10-2021

J U D G M E N T :

2

Cri.W.P. No. 1805-2017 (Judgment).odt

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of

both the parties.

2.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfed with the order passed by

the learned trial Court below Exh. 10 in Special Case No. 59 of

2019, arising out of Crime No. 25/2018, registered with Jawahar

nagar Police Stations, Aurangabad for the ofences punishable

under Section 498-A, 306, 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code and sections 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the

petitioners have fled this petition.

3.

The petitioners had fled application (Exh.10) in Special

Case No. 59 of 2019 for their discharge along with other accused.

The said application was partly allowed, but the prayer of the

petitioners for the discharge was rejected by the trial Court.

Hence, this petition.

4.

It is contended respondent No.2 Jagannath Rahut has lodged

FIR on 16.02.2018, with Jawahar Nagar Police Station. In

pursuance of the FIR, crime No. 25/2018 came to be registered

against the petitioners and others.

5.

It is alleged in the First Information Report that the daughter

of respondent No.2 i.e. deceased Sadhana was given in marriage

to petitioner No.1. It is contended that Sadhana was treated well

by petitioner No.1 and others for some days. Thereafter, they

3

Cri.W.P. No. 1805-2017 (Judgment).odt

started causing ill-treatment to her. It is alleged that the

petitioners and the other accused used to abuse and assault

Sadhana, on account of demand of Rs. 10,00,0000/-. It is alleged

that on various occasions, she was driven out of the house. It is

alleged that petitioner No.1 and others used to insist deceased

Sadhana to give divorce to petitioner No.1. It is also alleged that

on failure to fulfllment of demand of money, the deceased

Sadhana was harassed mentally and physically. It is contended

that due to ill-treatment caused to Sadhana, she came to the

house of the informant/respondent No.2. She used to remain in

mental pressure and, ultimately, she committed suicide by setting

herself on fre. Hence, FIR came to be lodged against them.

6.

It is contended that all the allegations made in the First

Information Report are false and bogus. The Investigating Ofcer

has recorded Dying Declaration of the deceased Sadhana,

wherein, she did not allege any ill-treatment caused to her by the

petitioners. It is denied that the petitioners used to demand

money from the deceased Sadhana. The FIR was fled with ulterior

motive. It is contended that the Investigating Ofcer relied on the

whats APP messages sent by the deceased Sadhana to petitioner

No.1, but even on going through the said messages, there is no

material to establish that the petitioners used to demand money

or dowry or any monetary beneft from the deceased.

4

Cri.W.P. No. 1805-2017 (Judgment).odt

7.

It is contended that the deceased Sadhana was having love

afairs with one Anand Khandevkar. She had lodged FIR against

said Anand for the ofence punishable under Section 376 of the

Indian Penal Cod