Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: Judgment 1 C. C. No. 1713/PW/2018.
C/S filed on : 27/06/2018
Registered on: 27/06/2018
Decided on : 16/05/2025
Duration : 06 Y 10 M 19 D
Exh. 19.
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (FIRST CLASS),
10TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED OVER BY R. M. SHAIKH)
C. C. No. 1713/PW/2018
(C.R.No. 84/2017)
(C.N.R.No. MHMM19-006840-2018)
J U D G M E N T
(u/Sec. 355 of Cr.P.C.)
(a) The serial number of the case. : C. C. No. 1713/PW/2018
(b) The date of the commission of
the offence.
: From 05/11/2013 to
14/06/2017
(c) The name of the Informant. : The State (Jogeshwari Police
Station in C. R. No. 84/2017)
(d) The name of the accused
person and their parentage
and residence;
: 1. Nitesh Pratap Bhanushali,
Age : 34 years,
2. Tara Pratap Bhanushali,
Age : 54 years,
3. Pratap Karsandas Bhanushali,
Age : 65 years,
All R/o. R.No. 13/B,
Navpoonam Society, 4th Floor,
Dombivali (E), Thane.
(e) The offence complained of : Under Section 498-A, 406, 323,
504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian
-- 1 of 10 --
Judgment 2 C. C. No. 1713/PW/2018.
Penal Code.
(f) The plea of the accused and
their examination.
: Accused pleaded not guilty.
(g) The final order : Accused are acquitted.
(h) The date of such order : 16/05/2025
(i) Brief statement of reasons : As recorded herein below.
Assistant Public Prosecutor : Shri. N.N.Sapkale.
Advocate for the accused : Shri. Diwakar Gond.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused are facing trial for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. In order to prove the guilt of accused, prosecution has
examined in all four witnesses. The evidence of PW1 Mahendra Damaji
Sayya at Exh.9, PW2 Priya Dharmesh More at Exh.10, PW3 Minal
Manoj Solanki at Exh.11 and PW4 IO API Prachiti Prabhakar Gadkari at
Exh.13 came to be recorded. The statements of accused u/Sec. 313 of
Cr. P. C are recorded at Exh.16 to Exh.18 wherein they took defence of
false implication in the case. Heard, Ld. APP for the State and Ld.
Advocate for the accused. Perused the oral and documentary evidence
brought on record.
3. In this back ground PW1 Mahendra Damaji Sayya deposed
that, informant Tanvi Nitesh Bhanushali was her daughter who got
married with accused No.1 on 05/11/2013 and he came to know about
-- 2 of 10 --
Judgment 3 C. C. No. 1713/PW/2018.
said fact of marriage after receiving phone call from Jogeshwari P.S.
Thereafter he along-with his brother met accused No.1 and his family
members and decided to perform marriage in presence of family
members and relatives. Therefore again on 13/11/2013 marriage of her
daughter Tanvi took place at Jain Mandir, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai and
after marriage her daughter was residing with accused at Dombivali at
her matrimonial house.
4. Further he deposed that, it was informed by accused No.1
that he was having 2-3 flats however he falsely stated so and he was
residing in Flat on rent basis and thereafter in the year 2014 mobile of
accused No.1 was stolen in the train. He asked his daughter to purchase
new mobile by him for accused No.1 and said fact was informed to him
by his daughter that accused No.1 was illtreating her on that account
and therefore he purchased one mobile of Samsung company from
Borivali and gave it to informant for giving it to accused No.1 as per
their demand. Thereafter mobile of her daughter was fallen by her
daughter and accused No.1 demanded Rs. 5,000/- for the expenses
towards repairing of her mobile.
5. Further he deposed that, accused No.1 demanded her
daughter to bring amount of Rs. 15,000/- from him for going to
Mahabaleshwar which was given by him to his daughter and thereafter
accused No.1 due to the accident of his four wheeler car demanded
amount of Rs. 60,000/- from him for repairing of the said car.
Accordingly he gave amount of Rs. 60,000/- to the garage owner for
repairing car of accused No.1. Accused No.1 was taking doubt on her
daughter and he also demanded to bring cash amount of Rs. 30,000/-
to his daughter for going to Goa. On that account accused No.1
-- 3 of 10 --
Judgment 4 C. C. No. 1713/PW/2018.
quarreled with her daughter and thereafter the relatives of accused
No.1 and his uncle threatened him to settle the matter.
6. Further he deposed that, accused No.1 was frequently
demanding amount to his daughter and on that account he was
mentally harassing and illtreating her daughter. Thereafter her daughter
filed complaint against accused to Jogeshwari P.S. and his statement
was recorded by police and his daughter died on 11/04/2022 at
Nanavati Hospital due to the disease of Brain Tumor.
7. During his cross-examination conducted on behalf of
accused, it is brought on record that, his daughter performed love
marriage with accused No.1 and he did not know whether his daughter
was having knowledge about the background of accused No.1 prior to
marriage and his family defamed due to love marriage of his daughter,
therefore they again performed her marriage. He transferred amount of
Rs. 15,000/- to the account of his daughter which was obtained by
accused No.1, but he is not having any proof to show that, he paid
amount of Rs. 60,000/- to garage owner for repairing the car of accused
No.1. He did not know why his daughter was not filed any police
complaint against accused for illtreatment from the year 2013 till the
year 2017 and whether any medical papers are available in that regard.
The rest of the cross is that of denial.
8. The next witness is examined by the prosecution PW2
Priya Dharmesh More deposed that, in the year 2017 she was residing
at the house of her parents at R.No. 19, Sainath Chawl, Ambawadi,
Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai and she was acquainted with informant who is
her cousin sister. She was married with accused No.1 on 05/11/2013
-- 4 of 10 --
Judgment 5 C. C. No. 1713/PW/2018.
which was Love marriage/Court marriage and after marriage she was
residing along-with her husband and in laws at Dombivali and she used
to meet her whenever she was coming to her maternal house. She was
informing her about the ill-treatment and harassment caused by her
husband, mother-in-law on account of demand of money.
9. Further she deposed that, accused No.1 was taking doubt
on her character and was calling on the office phone number of the
informant and her husband was also abusing her in filthy language and
she heard while he was abusing informant on mobile and they we tried
to convince the husband and in laws of the informant, however they
were not ready to listen and therefore informant filed complaint to
police station. Her statement was recorded by police and she is
acquainted with accused Nos. 1 to 3 who are the husband and in laws
of the informant
10. During her cross-examination conducted on behalf of
accused, it is brought on record that, she used to talk with informant
whenever she used to come to the maternal house one in 3 to 4 months.
The amount was given in her presence to accused. The rest of the cross
is that of denial.
11. The next witness is examined by the prosecution PW3
Minal Manoj Solanki deposed that, informant is her younger sister and
she was married with accused No.1 in November 2013. It was love
marriage which took place in Bandra Court and they received phone call
from Jogeshwari P.S. and came to know about the marriage of informant.
After marriage her sister was residing along-with accused Nos. 1 to 3 at
Dombivali (E), Thane and she used to talk with her sister on phone call
-- 5 of 10 --
Judgment 6 C. C. No. 1713/PW/2018.
sometimes and they were meeting at the house of her father on some
occasion and she informed her that she was harassed by accused for
money. Accused were demanding her money frequently and that time her
father was giving the amount to accused from time to time. In June 2014
accused demanded money and therefore informant came to her house and
also went to the house of her father and that time accused scolded her as
to why she came to her house without their permission. On 12/03/2017
informant came to her father’s house to obtain money as per the demand
of accused and while she was proceeding back to the house of accused,
accused No.1 quarreled with her on phone call and accused No.1 also
quarreled with her father.
12. Further she deposed that, informant returned back to her
father’s house and uncle of accused No.1 Lalji Mange came to her father’s
house to take her sister back and that time her father called her and after
discussion with her, they decided to send back informant to the house
accused, if he is ready to take her due responsibility. On 23/03/2017
accused Nos. 1 to 3 alongwith Lalji Mange came to the house of her father
and started quarreling with her father and informant and accused were
forcibly trying to take informant with him and accused No.1 pulled hands
of her sister. That time they have not sent her sister to the house of
accused. All the documents, cloths, ornaments of her sister were with
accused which informant was demanding repeatedly but accused refused
to give it to her. Thereafter informant lodged complaint in Jogeshwari P.S.
and police made inquiry with her and recorded her statement. Her sister
i.e. informant died during Covid-19 due to infection in her brain.
13. During her cross-examination conducted on behalf of
accused, it is brought on record that, she was not having knowledge that
informant was going to marry with accused No.1. All the accused were
-- 6 of 10 --
Judgment 7 C. C. No. 1713/PW/2018.
pressurizing informant and demanding money to her. The rest of the cross
is that of denial.
14. The last witness is examined by the prosecution PW4 IO
API Prachiti Prabhakar Gadkari deposed that, on 14/06/2017 one crime
vide C.R.No. 84/2017 was registered by PSI Hasina Shikalgar on the
basis of complaint filed by informant against accused Nos. 1 to 3. After
4 months the said matter was handed over to her for investigation
along-with FIR and complaint application. She had gone through the
contents of FIR about causing ill-treatment and harassment of informant
by her husband and in-laws on account of demand of money for
purchasing mobile, desktop, celebrating birthday of father of accused
No.1 and she proved FIR at Exh.14.
15. Further she deposed that, thereafter she recorded
statement of four witnesses and drew production panchnama on
01/12/2017 in respect of production of documents containing Adhar
Card, Birth certificate, school certificate and educational documents of
informant, wrist watch and silver coin which was produced by accused
No.2 Tara Bhanushali marked at Exh.15. The seized property was taken
to police station and deposited in the safe custody vide M.R.No.
100/2017 and on completion of my investigation, she found sufficient
evidence against accused of causing ill-treatment and harassment to
informant and demanding money and therefore she has filed charge-
sheet against accused.
16. During her cross-examination conducted on behalf of
accused, it is brought on record that, the informant performed marriage
with accused No.1 without giving knowledge to her parents and he has
-- 7 of 10 --
Judgment 8 C. C. No. 1713/PW/2018.
not recorded statement of witnesses residing near the house of accused.
During hher investigation she has not found any eye witness who had
seen causing ill-treatment and harassing by accused to informant and
she has not collected any document during investigation to show the
demand of money made by accused to informant. She has not made any
investigation in respect of earlier complaint or NC if any filed by
informant against the accused prior to this case. The rest of the cross is
that of denial.
17. Now at this stage on perusal of entire evidence adduced by
the prosecution, it appears that, the informant Tanvi Bhanushali is
reported to be dead as per the police report dated 23/08/2024 along-
with her death certificate on record and therefore, the prosecution has
failed to examine informant who is the prime witness in this case.
Therefore, the contents of FIR are not duly proved. PW1 to PW3 are the
relatives of the informant and they are hearsay witnesses in this case
and they were not having any knowledge about the love marriage of the
informant with the accused No.1. PW1 stated that, as his family will be
defamed due to love marriage, he again performed her marriage with
accused No.1. So also the PW1 is not having any proof to show that he
paid amount to the accused No.1.
18. PW4 is the investigation officer who deposed about the
investigation carried by her and in her cross-examination she admitted
that, she has not recorded statement of any eye witnesses residing near
the house of the accused who had seen causing ill-treatment and
harassing by accused to the informant and she has not collected any
document to show the demand of money made by accused. Therefore, it
seems that, the investigation officer has not carried investigation in
-- 8 of 10 --
Judgment 9 C. C. No. 1713/PW/2018.
proper manner.
19. So also PW1 to PW3 have deposed much in their chief
examination about causing ill-treatment, physical and mental
harassment by accused. However, to support the contention of PW1 to
PW3 no other witnesses residing near the house of accused are
examined or any independent witness who have witnessed the incident
of assault physical or mental, cruelty or ill-treatment to informant by
accused is also not examined by the prosecution. Therefore, merely
relying on the testimony of PW1 to PW3 is not safe to hold the accused
guilty for offence p/u/s. 498-A of the IPC.
20. As far as the charges for the offence p/u/s. 406 of the IPC is
concerned, there is no cogent and clinching evidence brought on record
by the prosecution and absolutely no documentary evidence is placed
on record. So also even though PW4 deposed about drawing house
search panchnama of accused, however gold and silver ornaments are
not seized by her during panchnama. Therefore, the prosecution has
failed to prove the charges levelled against accused for the offence
p/u/s. 406 of the IPC.
21. Therefore, considering all these facts, it appears that, the
evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the guilt
of accused for the offence p/u/s. 498-A, 406, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of
IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. As such accused are entitled to be
acquitted. In the result I proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
i Accused No. 1) Nitesh Pratap Bhanushali,
-- 9 of 10 --
Judgment 10 C. C. No.
1713/PW/2018.
accused No.2) Tara Pratap Bhanushali and accused
No.3) Pratap Karsandas Bhanushali are acquitted of
the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406,
323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide
section 248 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
ii Bail bonds of the accused stands cancelled.
iii As the informant is died seized muddemal i.e.
Educational documents of the informant, white
coloured seal containing ‘20 gram’ and one ladies wrist
watch of Titan Company be returned to her father
after appeal period.
iv The accused shall furnish bond of Rs.10,000/-
each under section 437(A) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
(R. M. Shaikh)
Judicial Magistrate (F.C.)
Date: 16/05/2025. 10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
Dictated on : 16/05/2025.
Transcribed on : 16/05/2025.
Signed on : 16/05/2025.
Signed on : 28/07/2023. : 19/10/2023
Signed on : 19/10/2023
-- 10 of 10 --