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 In view of the said praecipe, this Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn.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.