1 2897 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2897 OF 2010 Sau.Shahira (Sayara) Ismail Mulla.Petitioner Vs Ismail Hasanmiya Mulla & ors..Respondents Ms.Gauri Godse for Petitioner Mr.R.M.More APP for Respondents. CORAM : N.D.DESHPANDE,J. DATED : January 27, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard Ms.Godse learned counsel for the Petitioner. The Petitioner prays for the following reliefs : (a) that this Hon ble Court be pleased to call for records and proceedings of Criminal Revision Application No.102 of 2008 from the Court of learned AD hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad at Alibag as well as Regular Criminal Case No.22 of 2006 from the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, (F.C.) Alibag and after perusing the same, be pleased to quash and set aside order dated 21st June 2010 passed by learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions 2 2897 Judge, Raigad at Alibag in Criminal Revision Application No.102 of 2008 as well as order dated 16th April, 2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) Alibag in Regular Criminal Case NO.22 of 2006 and further be pleased to allow the Criminal Revision Application No. 102 of 2008. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner apprised me certain facts giving rise to the initial prosecution filed at the instance of the Petitioner Sahayara Ismail Mulla. On her complaint, concerned police station registered offence vide C.R.No. 183/2002 under sections 498/A, 323, 504, 50-6 r.w section 34 of IPC and after investigation the three respondents/original accused came to be tried before the J.M.F.C.Alibag. The Petitioner impugned the order of acquittal passed in their favour by the trial Court. A Criminal Revision Application was also filed by the Petitioner against order of acquittal. Hence, this Writ Petition is filed. 3. Admittedly, the Petitioner had left the matrimonial house at Khalapur in 1998 and started residing with her sister's place at Panvel. At the relevant time the complaint was lodged on or about 3.2.2002. 3 2897 4. It is seen that the complainant was married to respondent no.1 on 18.5.1996 and they cohabitated till 1998. It is case of the Petitioner that in the year 1998 respondent no.1 gave her beatings with his shoes in her stomach and therefore, she was admitted in Panvel Hospital. Thereafter, nobody from in-laws came to see her at her sister's house where she had returned after treatment. Then the respondent no.1 husband filed a Regular Civil Suit No.10 of 1998 for restitution of conjugal rights. 5. Admittedly, the FIR which further leads to the impugned prosecution started after four years about mental cruelty and harassment on account of illegal demand of Rs.1 lac for purchase of a truck and a flat. The said incident of physical cruelty of beating is of January 1998. On this point of inordinate delay the trial Court did not believe the case of the complainant both on point of mental cruelty, demand of dowry. Those are vague averments made and there being no evidence of beating. All charges were held not proved for want of corroboration. 6. It is true that the incident is reported to the police station after four years or more and it is difficult to appreciate the same. There is no perversity in the judgment of the trial Court which has taken into consideration the entire evidence 4 2897 adduced by the prosecution. So also it was considered by the Appellate Court. No interference therefore, is called for. Petition is devoid of merit which deserves to be dismissed. The same is dismissed at the stage of admission. N.D.DESHPANDE, J