1 wp 129-2020.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

Criminal Writ Petition No. 129 of 2020

Vasant Ukaram Kokate and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra Through P.S.O. Wadi Tq. & Distt.

Nagpur

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

Court'

s or Judge'

s orders

appearances, Court'

s orders of directions

and Registrar'

s orders

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr. Mahesh Rai, Advocate for the petitioners

Ms. Shamsi Haider, APP for the respondent No.1

Mr. D.G. Takwale, Advocate for the respondent No.2

CORAM :MANISH PITALE, J.

DATED : AUGUST 27, 2021

By this application, the petitioners

(original accused) have approached this Court,

challenging concurrent orders passed by the

Magistrate and Sessions Court, rejecting the

application for discharge filed on behalf of the

petitioners.

2.

The informant in the present case is the

daughter of the petitioner No.1. It is an admitted

position that there is matrimonial discord between

the petitioner No.1 and his wife. The informant and

her sister i.e. two daughters reside with their mother

and there are pending litigations between the parties

in the backdrop of the matrimonial discord. It is also

an admitted position that in a prosecution launched

against the petitioner Nos.1 and 3 along with two

other accused persons for offence under Section 498-

A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Court of the

Magistrate by judgment and order dated

2 wp 129-2020.odt

17/06/2013, acquitted the accused, including the

aforesaid petitioners.

3.

The alleged incident in the present case is

said to have taken place on 25/06/2014. The FIR

was caused to be registered by the informant two

days after the incident i.e. on 27/06/2014. In the

report leading to registration of FIR, the informant

alleged that on 25/06/2014, a case pending between

the parties was listed before the Court and after the

proceedings were over, when the informant and her

sister went to the house of their father i.e. petitioner

No.1, he asked as to how the two had come to that

place and that he would proceed to lodge a police

complaint against his own daughters. Thereafter, it is

alleged that the petitioner No.3 dragged the

informant and her sister to the door of the house and

at that place, the petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 allegedly

abused the informant and her sister and along with

the petitioner No.5, threatened them with dire

consequence.

4.

In the statements recorded during the

course of investigation, the informant has stuck to her

version stated before the police and her sister has

also supported the same. The statements were

recorded on 30/06/2014. The statement of the

mother of the informant and the sister-in-law of the

mother of the informant also referred to the incident

3 wp 129-2020.odt

and they claimed that they reached the spot of the

incident upon being called by the informant on

phone. Such statements are on record along with

other material and after the chargesheet was filed,

the petitioners applied before the Magistrate for

discharge.

5.

By order dated 30/08/2016, the

Magistrate rejected the application, although he

observed that out of four witnesses only two

witnesses i.e. the informant and her sister were eye

witnesses and mother and mother-in-law of the

informant were hearsay witnesses. Aggrieved by the

order of the Magistrate, the petitioners filed revision

application before the Sessions Court. By the

impugned judgment and order dated 05/09/2019,

the revision application was dismissed. The Sessions

Court commented upon the ingredients of offence

under Section 294 of the IPC and found that since the