1 A IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.624 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant V/s. Deepa Bharat Kalekar & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.A.S.Shitole, A.P.P.for the State. Mr.S.S.Kulkarni for Respondent No.3. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : JUNE 16TH,2009. P.C. Heard rival submissions at length. 2. It is the application for leave to file an appeal against the acquittal of Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in the matter of offences punishable under section 498A, 323, 504 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and also punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 7 (1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. 2 3. Perused the contents of the application. Also perused the annexed documents including the copy of the impugned Judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge under Atrocities Act, Pune. Apparently, it is a dispute between the prosecutrix and her husband both belonging to different castes. Prosecutrix belonging to the caste `Mang’ notified as Scheduled caste. Admittedly, both had love marriage and stayed together happily at different place from the house of the parents of the boy who is accused No.3. Afterwards the marriage between the prosecutrix and accused No.3 was accepted by his parents and then they started residing in joint family. However, subsequently dispute arose regarding the matrimonial relations. Upon request of prosecutrix she was taken to her mothers place by accused No.1 mother- in-law of the prosecutrix. Admittedly, there is a divorce petition pending between the parties which is initiated by accused No.3 husband of the prosecutrix. Apparently, out of such family dispute and allegations and insult of the prosecutrix on her caste, the police complaint came to be lodged and which was taken before the Special Court at Pune and disposed of acquitting all the five accused by impugned Judgment and order. Six prosecution witnesses were examined including prosecutrix and 3 her mother as P.W.No. 1 and 3. P.W.No.2 is the neighbour, belonging to the same caste as that the mother of the prosecutrix and residing in the same area in the neighborhood of mother of the prosecutrix. P.W.No.4 appears to be the advocate of the prosecutrix concerning matrimonial dispute and reportedly to have heard the altercations regarding castes of the prosecutrix and which took place in the house of accused Nos. 1,2 and 3, when prosecutrix alongwith her mother and other relatives had been to the house of her husband. P.W.5 is apparently the independent witness. P.W.6 is the investigating officer. 4. After going through the reasoning given by the Trial Court and considering the dispute between the parties and rising all the allegations against Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, in the opinion of this Court, it is not a case in which a leave is required to be granted in order to ascertain the correctness or legality of the Judgment and order of acquittal which is challenged. In the result, present leave petition is not allowed and accordingly dismissed. (A.R. JOSHI, J.)