1 appln­1324­10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1324 OF 2010 Vaishali Pavankumar Ramarapu ..Applicant. versus Govindu Ramarapu & ors ..Respondents. Mr. Sandeep S. Salunkhe, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. S.D. Thokade, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 Mrs S.D. Shinde, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 8th March, 2011 P.C. :­ 1. Heard rival submissions at length on this criminal application preferred by the wife against her husband and others. 2. Facts of the present matter, as revealed from the documents produced and through the arguments under record are of very peculiar nature. For having more clarity of the events happened, regarding various applications and complaints made between the parties, certain 2 appln­1324­10 factual position can be narrated, as under :­ 3. Present applicant wife had filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.3, Sholapur under the relevant provisions of Domestic Violence Act and also for taking action against her husband and his other relatives under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. As such, initially, order was passed by J.M.F.C. on 11th October, 2007 and process was issued against only accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence under Section 498­A and no process was issued against the said accused for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. By the said order process was not issued either under Section 498­A of I.P.C. or under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the original accused Nos. 4 and 5. 4. Being such order of issuing process only against accused Nos. 1 to 3, both parties became aggrieved and respective criminal revision applications were filed before the Sessions Court at Sholapur. Wife preferred Revision Application against the said order dated 11th October, 2007 asking for issuance of process against accused Nos. 4 and 5 for all the offences mentioned in the complaint and against accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Counter to this, the husband and his relatives i.e. accused Nos.2 and 3 3 appln­1324­10 preferred independent revision challenging the order dated 11th October, 2007 and asking for quashing of the said order against accused Nos. 1 to 3 for issuance of process under Section 498­A of the I.P.C. 5. It is an admitted position that till date the revision petition filed by the husband and his relatives is pending before the Sessions Court at Sholapur. During the pendency of the revision petition preferred by the wife, some office objections were not removed and as such when the matter was taken before the learned Sessions Judge, Sholapur, he passed the following order on 27th March, 2008. “The Advocate of the Applicant has not complied the office objections since long. Application stands dismissed”. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal of the criminal application preferred by the wife, she filed second Criminal Revision Application before the same Sessions Court, Sholapur instead of taking recourse to the Higher Court. Said second criminal application is bearing No.83 of 2009. Apparently, said second revision application was belatedly filed and the delay was caused in filing the same. As such 4 appln­1324­10 Misc.Criminal Appln. No.1199 of 2008 was independently preferred. Subsequently, by order dated 26th March, 2009 learned Sessions Judge, Sholapur passed order on Criminal Misc.Application No.1199 of 2008 and delay caused in filing the second Revision Application was condoned on the condition of cost of Rs.5,000/­ to be deposited within 15 days of the order. On payment of such cost within prescribed period the revision application was directed to be registered. Consequently, it was numbered as Criminal Revision Application No. 83 of 2009. 7. On passing of the above order as to registration of second revision initiated at the instance of the wife, now the husband and his other relatives being aggrieved, took the matter before this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1472 of 2009. It was taken before the another Bench and vide order dated 19th November, 2009, a sort of settlement was noted to the effect that wife assured to withdraw the second Criminal Revision Application No.83 of 2009, then pending before the Sessions Court, Sholapur and also to withdraw the Misc.Criminal Appln. No. 1199 of 2008 for condonation of delay and apparently there was no objection given by the husband and his other relatives, then respondents, in the Criminal Writ Petition, of course, by reserving their right to challenge the first revision application subject to 5 appln­1324­10 law of limitation. As such, apparently it was agreed between the parties that wife would withdraw the second Criminal Revision Application pending before the Sessions Court, Sholapur bearing No.83 of 2009 along with the Delay Condonation Application and presumably would be allowed to proceed with the first revision application which was already dismissed in default. 8. At this juncture, it must be mentioned that in the order dated 19th November, 2009 passed by the another Bench of this Court, there is no such clear cut understanding given as to the first criminal application was to be revived inspite of there was delay in filing the same. 9. On the above terms, in fact, it was incumbent upon the wife to appear before the Sessions Court at Sholapur and to withdraw the second Criminal Revision Application No. 83 of 2009 along with delay condonation application and to prosecute further the first Criminal Revision Application, which was dismissed for default. Apparently, that has not been done, as there is order dated 17th October, 2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sholapur, below Exh.1 in said Criminal Revision Application No. 83 of 2009. Plain reading of the said order indicate that there was no simplicitor withdrawal of the said criminal Revision Application No. 83 of 2009 and in fact wife avoided to withdraw the 6 appln­1324­10 same as has been observed in the said order. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Application No. 83 of 2009 was disposed of by the Court. This order disposing the second Criminal Revision Application No. 83 of 2009 was passed on 13th January, 2010. Thereafter on 2nd March, 2010 present Criminal Application No. 1324 of 2010 came to be filed and it is pending till date. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents drawn attention of this Court to the contents of the affidavit in reply, dated 15th July, 2010 and strongly objected for grant of any relief as mentioned in the present application. For the sake of clarity, as to the manner in which and what relief is claimed by the wife, said prayer is reproduced herein: “(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the order dated 27.3.2008 page 19 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sholapur in respect of Criminal Revision Application No. dated 14.1.2008 filed by the applicant. (b) Any other and further relief which this Hon’ble Court deem and proper be passed.” 7 appln­1324­10 11. Considering the over all circumstances, as narrated above, the factual position as on today, as emerged from the various orders, is to the effect that as per the initial order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C. Sholapur, dated 11th October, 2007 there is issuance of process as against original accused Nos. 1 to 3 i.e. husband and his two relatives and that process was issued only for the offence punishable under section 498­A of the I.P.C.and there is no process against said accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and against accused Nos. 4 and 5 of the offences charged in the complaint. In fact, as on today, what is sought by the present application is the challenge to the said earlier order of issuance of process of 11th October, 2007 by quashing and setting aside the order of the Sessions Judge, Sholapur dated 27th March, 2008 passed while dismissing the first revision application for default. At this stage, it must not be lost sight that though permission was given to the wife to withdraw her second revision, still the right of the husband and his relatives insofar as to challenge the continuance of the first revision was kept open on the aspect of limitation. Said aspect of limitation is dealt with in para No.9 of the affidavit in reply preferred by husband – Respondent No.1 herein. 8 appln­1324­10 12. Considering over all effect of the above fact, in the opinion of this Court, the relief by way of inherent powers cannot be extended in favour of the applicant. Criminal Application No. 1324 of 2010 stands dismissed and disposed of accordingly. (A.R. JOSHI, J.)