1 cra373-2010.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.373 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.146 OF 2006 Sonabai Digambar Jagtap ..Petitioner Vs Gramsevak, Grampanchayat Dalaj No.1 and ors. ..Respondents -- Ms.Ameeta Kuthikrishnan i/b.Ms.Shubhada Khot, for petitioner. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 26 th NOVEMBER, 2010 P.C: Heard learned for the petitioner. She relied upon the orders dated 22 nd January, 2007 and 12 th June, 2007 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Application filed by the petitioner. Criminal Revision Application was filed by the petitioner – victim of the offence challenging the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge. At the instance of the petitioner, the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code committed against the petitioner’s daughter was registered. The prosecution ended in conviction. The case of the petitioner is that after 2 cra373-2010.sxw registration of the FIR, her house was set on fire by the accused persons and, therefore, FIR was registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 436 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Court acquitted the accused and the aforesaid Revision Application was filed by the petitioner challenging the order of acquittal. 2] In the first order dated 22 nd January, 2007, this Court ordered that though the order of acquittal cannot be disturbed, notice will have to be issued to the State Government for the purpose of providing compensation to the petitioner for the loss of her house in fire. While disposing of the Revision Application by order dated 12 th June, 2007, this Court observed thus:- “ In this view of the matter, no interference is called for with the judgment and order of acquittal. However, by the said order, the notice was also issued to the State Government only for the purpose of providing compensation to the applicant for the loss of her house/hut which was set on fire. In respect of the said order, the learned A.P.P. states that the State Government will follow up the said matter and take a decision thereon as expeditiously as possible.” Thus, this Court recorded the statement of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that the State Government will take a decision in the matter. 3] It appears that on the basis of the said statement, the State Government issued a communication to the Collector directing him to 3 cra373-2010.sxw ascertain whether any residential premises can be allotted to the petitioner under any of the schemes of the Government. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court to the subsequent communication issued on 26 th October, 2009 by which, the Project Director informed that as per the provisions of the scheme, residential accommodation cannot be allotted to the petitioner as she is not eligible. Thus, a substantial compliance has been made with the statement of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor recorded by this Court by considering the case of the petitioner for grant of a premises. Though the contempt proceedings cannot be initiated, the remedy of the petitioner to challenge the decision will have to be kept open. 4] Contempt Petition is disposed of by keeping the aforesaid remedy of the petitioner open. [A.S.OKA, J]