1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision Application No. 136/2009 Anita Vinod Pawar ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and ors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Tathod, Advocate for applicant. Mr. Yengal, A.P.P. for non applicant no.1 CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED:- 12 th AUGUST, 2009. 1. On the basis of the first information report filed by applicant, action was taken against non applicant nos. 2 to 7 and they were required to face prosecution under Section 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mangrul Pir. Non applicant nos. 2 to 7 faced trial and the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (hereinafter referred as the ‘trial Judge’). The learned trial Judge acquitted non applicant nos. 2 to 7 of charge under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code by order dated 04.06.2009. The applicant being complainant has filed the present criminal revision application. 2. I have extensively heard learned Advocates for the respective sides. Learned Advocate Mr. Tathod submitted that 2 though the prosecution had examined proper witness, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class arrived at improper conclusion by appreciating the evidence in wrong direction. According to him, a lady, who has been subjected to cruelty may not be in a position to give details in regard to each and every aspect of the cruelty and, therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class should have considered the entire evidence in totality and should have accepted the case of the applicant. As against this learned A.P.P., Mr. Yengal, of course submitted that this Court should pass appropriate order. 3. I have considered the record and I am inclined to observe that learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has passed an appropriate order basing on the evidence which was placed before him. The arguments advanced by learned Advocate Mr. Tathod cannot be accepted. The prosecution examined three witnesses namely PW1 Anita applicant, PW2 Sheelabai and PW3 Janusingh. The nature of allegations against the non applicant nos. 2 to 7 is inflicting cruelty by demanding money and assaulting the applicant. A conjoint reading of the evidence of the witnesses, which have been examined by the prosecution, it is clear that those witnesses did not support each other and they 3 have not been able to give such an evidence to show that the prosecution has to prove guilt of the accused beyond shadow of doubt. In fact, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has considered the evidence of each and every witness and has mentioned in the judgment as to why the said evidence cannot be accepted. Learned Judicial Magistrate First class has passed an appropriate and reasoned order in which no interference is required. Hence, the order. The application is dismissed at the admission stage. JUDGE kahale