IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4247 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 Miss Kavita Manoj Mathur .. Applicant V/s. Manoj Hariprasad Mathur & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.M.S.Prasad for the Applicant. Mrs.Agnes Martins i/b.M.P.Vashi & Associates for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mrs.M.H.Mhatre, A.P.P.for the State. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : APRIL 29th , 2009. P.C. Heard rival submissions for some time. 2. It is the application for leave to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Metropolitan, Andheri, 1 Railway Mobile Court, dated 9th January, 2008. By the said impugned Judgment and order present Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 i.e. husband of the applicant and sisters and brother in law of said husband were acquitted for the offence punishable under section 498 A of Indian Penal Code it is the order which is challenged in the present leave petition for filing the appeal. 3. Admitted position is relevant to be construed in order to ascertain whether the present leave petition can be allowed or not. Present applicant and Respondent No.1 married on 26th December, 1997 and both had cohabited as husband and wife for about three months. Admittedly, thereafter applicant started residing with her parents. It is also admitted position that original accused Nos. 2 and 3 were not residing with applicant and accused No.1. It is also a factual position that some time in the year 1998 a divorce petition was preferred initially before the Family Court at Bandra, and it was then transferred to Senior Division, Thane, and it was allowed and decree of divorce was granted in the year 2007. It is admitted position that during the pendency of such divorce petition, complaint by the applicant for the offence punishable under section 498 A and for taking action against present Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 came to be filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Andheri 6/1/2001. Admittedly, applicant and Respondent No.1 her husband are 2 highly educated persons. Applicant is M.Sc. and earning salary of Rs.15,000/- per month or so and Respondent No.1 is also serving and drawing salary of about 20,000/-. 4. Bearing in mind the above factual position, it is to be ascertain whether the acts alleged against Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 do attract the provisions of section 498 A of Indian Penal Code. It is apparent that the allegations are leveled against the accused that at one time Respondent No.1 demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- and on one occasion Respondent No.1 tortured the applicant and compelled her to sign on certain applications purportedly to be the account opening form of joint account. Considering such allegations and considering the evidence of P.W. Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the applicant and her father, trial Magistrate came to the conclusion to hold that the offence punishable under section 498 A was not established. Considering the above mentioned factual postilion, in the opinion of this Court, there is nothing to interfere and to allow the present application to file the appeal and as such present leave petition is dismissed and accordingly disposed of. (A.R. JOSHI, J.) 3