AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Both Criminal Appeal 615/2002 and Criminal Revision
Application 179/2002 seek to challenge the judgment and order dated
06-8-2002 rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chandrapur in Regular Criminal Case 640/1998, by and under which
the respondents-accused are acquitted of offence punishable under
Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("Act" for
short).
Criminal Appeal 615/2002 is preferred by the State and
Criminal Revision Application 179/2002 is preferred by the
complainant Deorao Patruji Khanke. In order to keep the record
straight, it must be noted that Regular Criminal Case 640/1998 was
tried alongwith Complaint Case 346/1999. The complaint case was
instituted by the revisionist herein. The operative order passed in
Regular Criminal Case 640/1998 reads thus : 1. Accused No.1 to 4 are hereby acquitted of the offence under Section 498-A r/w 34 of I.P.C . vide Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.
Their bail-bonds stand cancelled.
Ultimately Complaint Case No.346/99 also stands dismissed.
The dismissal of Complaint Case 346/1999 was challenged
by the complainant Deorao Patruji Khanke in Criminal Appeal
385/2003. However, the complainant-appellant in Criminal Appeal
385/2003 filed on record a praecipe dated 7-3-2008 stating that the
matrimonial proceedings pending between his daughter Aparna @
Acharna and accused Sanjay Zade which were pending before the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur stood compromised. The
praecipe further states that in view of the consent judgment and decree
dated 21-2-2008 passed by the Family Court, Nagpur, he did not wish
to continue with the appeal. In view of the said praecipe, this Court
disposed of the appeal as withdrawn.
In view of the settlement between the parties leading to
the withdrawal of Criminal Appeal 385/2003, nothing really survives
in Criminal Revision Application 179/2002. The State case and the
complaint case were tried together. The complainant withdrew the
appeal challenging the dismissal of the complaint case. The criminal
revision application is preferred against the same judgment and order.
In so far as the State appeal is concerned, having perused
the evidence on record and the reasoning recorded by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, I do not find any compelling reason to
interfere in the judgment of acquittal. The view taken is a possible
view. No perversity of approach or in appreciation of evidence is
demonstrated. No miscarriage of justice has occasioned. Au contraire,
the complainant and the accused having amicably settled the inter se
dispute and the complainant not being interested in pursuing the issue,
it would be wholly unnecessary and unwarranted to entertain the
appeal at the behest of the State. Even on merits, I concur with the
reasons recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate that the
prosecution has not proved the offence punishable under Section 498-A
of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal Appeal 615/2002 and Criminal Revision
Application 179/2002 are dismissed.