1 4743-10 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4743 OF 2010 Nafisa Paltu Khan .. Petitioner Versus The Inspector of Police Varsova Police Station and others .. Respondents Mr. Riwan G. Merchant a/w Swapnil L. Wagh for the petitioner Mr. S. A. Shaikh, APP for the State CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 5 th April, 2011 P. C. 1. This criminal application has been filed by the original complainant at whose instance a case of offence of rape has been registered against original accused no.1. In the said case his mother and sisters have also been made co-accused and it is alleged that mother and sister of accused No.1, who committed rape, threatened the applicant so that she should not give evidence against accused no.1 knowing that their son/brother has committed rape on her. She was threatened that she should immediately quit and go away from Mumbai or face dire consequence, even to the extent that she would be disfigured or seriously injured by throwing acid. Such threats were given day after day after the alleged commission of rape in the month of June 2008. 2 4743-10 2. The trial Court, after hearing both the side i.e. prosecution and the accused framed charge at Exhs.15 on 5 th October, 2010. Thereafter opportunity of hearing was given to the complainant. The counsel for the complainant field written notes of argument and submissions insisting on framing additional charge under section 201, 202 and 212 of I.P.C. However request of the complainant for framing additional charge as aforesaid has not been considered and the application was rejected, which is impugned in this application. 3. Head Mr. Merchant learned counsel for the applicant. At the stage of admission he could not point out from the material on record and no material is found in the application as to what is stated to indicate that the mother and sister of accused no.1 had knowledge of the offence of rape so that they further deal with the complainant in the matter of causing disapparance of the evidence in the interest of accused no.1 to protect and shield him. 4. I have gone through the application and the submissions of learned counsel Mr. Merchant and also the impugned order of rejection. Though the word is missing in the order, admittedly the application is rejected. After hearing both the side, the trial Curt has framed charges as per Exh. 15 dated 5/10/2010 and prima faice come to the conclusion that a case has been made out of rape against accused under section 376, 506 (II) and 323 read with 3/4 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. 3 4743-10 5. In my opinion, there is no illegality or perversity found in the said order of framing charge to the extent what is reflected in Exh.15. During the course of argument, learned Counsel Mr. Merchant for the applicant seeks withdrawal of this application with liberty to make application for framing of charge under section 201, 202 and 212 of I.P.C. Liberty is granted. Petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as sought. 6. Application is disposed of as withdrawn. ( N. D. DESHPANDE, J. )