bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. CRI. CRI. APPLICATION NO. 3986 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO. 3986 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO. 3986 OF 2006 Mrs.Vinita @ Mandatai Vijay Kadam ... Applicant v/s State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr.U.P.Warunjikar for the applicant. Mr.Shreekant V. Gavand for respondent Nos.2 to 7. Mrs.A.A.Mane, A.P.P. for the respondent No.1 State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 12TH JUNE, 2008 12TH JUNE, 2008 12TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The application has been filed challenging the order passed on 17.11.2005 by the J.M.F.C., Patan, contending that the charges under Sections 418 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code should also be framed. Besides this, it is contended that the Magistrate has not considered the other prayer made in the application dated 2.4.2005 for leading additional evidence after framing of the charge. 2. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant that charges under Sections 418 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code ought to have been framed since the 2 accused has induced the applicant into marrying him knowing fully well that he was H.I.V. Positive and the likelihood of the applicant being infected with this disease. 3. In my opinion, the learned Magistrate cannot be faulted for not taking cognizance and framing charges under Sections 418 and 420 of the I.P.C. These offences relate to property of a person and not to the body of the person. The body of a woman can by no stretch of imagination be treated as property and, therefore, these sections would not be attracted. 4. As regards the contention that the learned Magistrate has not considered the second prayer made in the application, a bare perusal of the order indicates that the learned Magistrate has not considered the prayer made for recalling the witness under Section 217 of the Cr.P.C. 5. In view of this, the application is dismissed with a direction to the learned Magistrate to decide the second prayer made in the application dated 2.4.2005 within four weeks from today. Since the applicant is H.I.V. Positive, the learned Magistrate will complete the trial expeditiosly. 3 6. Criminal application disposed of accordingly.