Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 C.C.NO. 2202541/PW/2018
Filed on : 11092018
Registered on : 11092018
Decided on : 23112019
Duration : 00Y, 02M, 12D
Exh. : 09
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDIL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, 22nd COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(Presided Over by S.C.PATHARE)
Judgment Under Section 355 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure
(a) The serial & CNR No. of
the case;
: C. C. No. 2202541/PW/2018
CNR No.MHMM190098992018
(b) The date of commission of
the offence;
: During the period from
November2016 to 20022018
(c) The name of the
complainant
(if any);
: The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of M.I.D.C. Police
Station in Crime No. 127/2018)
(d) The name of the accused
person and his parentage
and residence;
: 1)
2)
3)
Rohit Ramchet Yadav
Age : 26 years,
Occupation : Service.
Ramchet Sadaduram Yadav
Age : 50 years,
Occupation : Labour.
Rekha Ramchet Yadav
Age : 45 years,
Occupation : Housewife.
...2/
-- 1 of 5 --
2 C.C.NO. 2202541/PW/2018
4) Mohit Ramchet Yadav
Age : 21 years,
Occupation : Service
Accused Nos. 1 to 4 are
r/at : Sai Bhagwan Nagar,
Road No.19, M.I.D.C.,
Andheri(East), Mumbai93.
(e) The offence complained
of or proved;
: Under Sections 498(A), 406, 324,
504 & 506 of the I.P.C.
(f) The plea of the accused
and
his examination(if any);
: Accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
(g) The final order; : As per final order.
(h) The date of such order; : 23112019.
Appearance: APP Smt. N. R. Pasarkar for the State.
Advocate Shri. A. R. Maurya for the accused.
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 23112019 )
1. The accused persons stand prosecuted for the offences
punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 324, 504 & 506 of the I.P.C.
2. Informant Sushila got married with accused No.1 Rohit.
The other accused are his relatives. According to F.I.R., after marriage
accused persons subjected informant lady to various types of physical
and mental illtreatments in order to get fulfilled their unlawful
demands of dowry, etc, therefore, she filed report against accused.
3. On the basis of F.I.R. crime was registered. Investigation
...3/
-- 2 of 5 --
3 C.C.NO. 2202541/PW/2018
was carried out by Investigating Officer in usual manner. Police
recorded statements of the witnesses. Police also seized stridhan of
informant from the accused. On completion of the investigation, I.O.
submitted chargesheet.
4. My predecessor framed charge (Exh2). It was read over
and explained to them in vernacular to which they pleaded their
innocence and claimed to be tried. The statements of accused under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. are not recorded as there is no incriminating
evidence against them.
5. The points for determination along with my findings with
reasons thereon are as Infra :
Sr.
No.
Points Findings
1. Does the prosecution prove that the accused No.1
being husband of informant and other accused
being his relatives subjected her to cruelty by
harassing physically and mentally? No.
2. Does it further prove that on the above date, time
and place accused being entrusted with stridhan
committed breach of trust in respect of the same? No.
3. Does it further prove that the accused voluntarily
caused hurt to informant by means of fist blows? No.
4. Does it further prove that the accused intentionally
insulted informant by abusing her and gave
provocation intending or knowing it to be likely
that such provocation will cause her to break the
public peace or to commit any office? No.
5. Does it further prove that the accused committed
criminal intimidation by threatening informant
with intention to cause alarm to the same?
No.
...4/
-- 3 of 5 --
4 C.C.NO. 2202541/PW/2018
6 What order ? As per final
order
R E A S O N S
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined only
one witness i.e. PW 1 Sushila Yadav(informant) vide Exh7. Thereafter,
prosecution submitted pursis dated 23112019 and closed evidence.
: Point Nos. 1 to 5 :
7. On perusal of testimony of the star witness i.e. informant it
shows that both the parties have settled their dispute out of the Court
amicably, therefore, PW 1 avoided deposing anything incriminating
against the accused persons. She deposed that there were quarrels and
natures of informant and her husband were not matching with each
others. Even though F.I.R. is in respect of dowry demand, informant
refused such type of demand. Moreover, she has denied genuineness of
contents of her own F.I.R. According to testimony of PW 1 she had
lodged F.I.R. out of anger and now she is not having any grievance
against the accused. It is true that offence is not compoundable,
however, when informant i.e. material/star witness herself is not
supporting her own F.I.R. in that event there remains no any propriety
in keeping case pending hopelessly. In short, there is absence of clear,
cogent and reliable evidence against the accused, therefore, accused are
entitled to benefit of doubt. Resultantly, I answer point Nos.1 to 5 in
the negative and proceed to pass following order.
...5/
-- 4 of 5 --
5 C.C.NO. 2202541/PW/2018
O R D E R
(i) The accused abovenamed stand acquitted of the offences
punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 324, 504 & 506 of the
I.P.C. vide Section 248 (1) of the Cr.P.C.
(ii) Their bail bonds stand cancelled and they are set at liberty.
(iii) They shall furnish P.B. of Rs. 5,000/ each under Section
437A of the Cr.P.C. for the further period of six months.
(iv) Seized property i.e. stridhan is already returned to the
informant lady, therefore no any further orders are required to
pass in that regard.
Date : 23112019
(S.C.Pathare)
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
22nd Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
*csj
Dictated on : 23112019
Typed on : 23112019
Signed on : 23112019
.../
-- 5 of 5 --