1 Cri.Revn.Appln.No.10/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.10/2011. Naserbeen s/o Sayedeein Hamud Age: 37 Yrs., occu. Driver, R/o Maksood Colony, Aurangabad. - PETITIONER (orig.Accused) VERSUS The State of Maharashtra. - RESPONDENT ***** Mr.Vijay Sharma, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.NB Patil, APP for State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 8th March, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned APP for State finally. 2) The Revision petitioner/accused, challenged the conviction in RCC No.1842 of 2008 for an offence under Section 498-A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code dated 14.7.2009 recorded by Judicial Magistrate First Class, 6th Court, Aurangabad, directing the petitioner/husband to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. It was challenged before the learned District Judge 2 Cri.Revn.Appln.No.10/2010 at Aurangabad in an appeal, being Criminal Appeal No.123 of 2009, however, failed and the conviction was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Aurangabad by order dated 11th January, 2011, consequently, the present revision. 3) The learned Counsel for the petitioner/husband basically harped on the events in the life of the spouse to impress that the husband has initiated proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, as the wife has deserted from 5.5.2008. In spite of visits by the petitioner, however, her parents did not send her. On the contrary, the husband was threatened that if he visits again, he may face fetters. The application for restitution of conjugal rights was moved on 8th May, 2008. 4) The wife had also moved an application dated 16th June, 2008 to the Women’s Redressal Forum at Commissionerate, Aurangabad, with a grievance that the petitioner/husband is not willing to take her in company for cohabitation and also causing mental, financial and physical cruelty. In the said application also, she claimed that before a month on 16.6.2008, the husband dropped her to her parents and did not come to take her back at the matrimonial home. 3 Cri.Revn.Appln.No.10/2010 On the contrary, he started demanding money, for which, in past Rs.30,000/- were given. 5) The learned Judge, assessing the evidence of the wife as PW-1; her parents, as PW2 and PW3, found substance in their version and convicted the petitioner/accused. 6) On analysis of the evidence, I find that no events, as are required of ill-treatment, are illustrated by Sameerabegum; father - Ahmed Baig PW-2 and or mother - Mariyabi PW 3. The matter more devolves to counter and to avoid the matrimonial proceedings initiated by the husband to resume the company. It is pertinent, in the matter of such sensitive character, where even if the affairs of spouse could have been in four corners of the room, the parties, being residing in a densely populated area, the neighbours are bound to smell foul. The victim Sameerabegum did not bother, nor the Investigator to call on any independent person to endorse and stamp that there was cruelty, unlawful demand and harassment at the behest of the husband. The learned Judge believed the evidence of PW 1 – Sameerabegum to the extent that at the time of marriage, her father had given gold ornaments, household articles and there was demand of Rs.15,000/- for purchasing Tavera vehicle. However, the learned 4 Cri.Revn.Appln.No.10/2010 Judge did not consider that the wife is changing her stand time to time, even specifications of the so-called demands were projected. The wife did not respond in the cross-examination to exact or near date when the accused allegedly beat her or abused her. If in past she was really harassed, considering the controversies between the couple, it is not that the wife was refrained from approaching the police or reputed person in the locality to redress her grievance. However, the wife did not lodge her grievance for redressal or report to any authority, informing any act of ill treatment by the accused, the husband. The submissions of the husband to this effect were ignored by the learned Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, did not entertain the matrimonial proceedings on the ground that the husband could have produced the same at the proper time before the learned JMFC. Even if it was an appeal, it was the matter of record, the learned Sessions Court ought to have considered these aspects. The evidence of the parents, referred above, is totally fell short of any specific quantum of demand by the accused, the husband, which has come in evidence of Samerrabegum – PW 1. The contention of the husband that the proceedings of RCC No.1842 of 2008 were more as a counter, stands reinforced. 5 Cri.Revn.Appln.No.10/2010 7) The learned Counsel for the husband has placed reliance to the judgment in the matter of Neelu Chopra and Anr. Vs. Bharti – (2009) 10 SCC 184, wherein the Hon’ble Lordships of the Apex Court, seeking quashment of the complaint under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., observed in paragraph no. 9 as under, - “9.In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not the be-all and end- all of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence.” In that case, the complaint was vague and the Hon’ble Lordships found that it was a sad affair. 8) Now, reverting to the facts of the present case, it is not the complaint alone, but it is evidence of three crucial witnesses which is completely in isolation to demonstrate the events with meticulous character or to some extent with accuracy to lead to impress that there was indeed harassment or ill treatment for the demand from the husband. 9) Taking survey of the above facts, 6 Cri.Revn.Appln.No.10/2010 appreciation of the evidence carried by the learned first Appellate Court also calls for interference. There is perversity in the order. Consequently, both the orders call for interference in the revision. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by learned JMFC, confirmed by Appellate Court is set aside. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/