1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 482 OF 2008 Surbhit Dileep Barla ...Applicant Veersus Rameshchanddra Parakh & Ors. ...Respondents. ---- Mr. Vibhor Barla, for the Applicant. Mr. S.K. Shinde i/b Mr. Sagar Kasar, for the Respondents. Mrs. R.V. Newton, APP for the State. ---- CORAM: SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATE : 25th November, 2009. P.C. 1. The Applicant is the original Complainant. The original complaint is filed by the Applicant before the of Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nasik for offence committed by his wife, mother-in-law and father-in-law under sections 312, 120B, 34 of the IPC and sections 3,4, and 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. 2. The case made out in the complaint is that the Applicant was married to accused no.1, his wife on 9th May 2006, and she got pregnant on 15th October 2006. On 13th February, 2007 she left matrimonial home 2 at 3.00 p.m. and went to Nasik Road railway station and got railway tickets for Raipur which is her maternal home and kept waiting there without food and water nearly about for 5 hours without caring of her pregnancy. The complainant was uninformed of her whereabouts. He contacted her father and narrated the full incident. Her father came and his wife had to be admitted in the hospital at 5.30 a.m. in the morning on 14.2.2007 for about 12 hrs. Her parents came to Nasik on 15.2.2007. Her mother took her shopping to Big Bazaar and they shopped for 5 hours though she was pregnant and recently discharged from the hospital. Thereafter, her parents took her to Raipur. His wife’s mother left for Raipur leaving the medicines prescribed for his wife by the Doctor, and his wife finally underwent an abortion of the foetus of 21 weeks without the consent and knowledge of her husband on 14th March, 2007. The complainant was informed about the abortion after it was carried out. He was denied the medical records by the father of his wife. The Complainant was trying to bring his wife back to the matrimonial home. However, he could not and hence the complaint was filed. 3. The complaint is therefore upon the offence of wrongful termination of pregnancy. The case is that the termination of pregnancy is caused due to starvation at railway station on 13.2.2007 and 3 shopping in Big Bazzar on 15.2.2007 for nearly five hours without taking any food and not taking medicines which Doctor had prescribed upon discharge from the hospital when his wife was taken by her mother to Raipur on 17.2.2007 4. It is to be seen whether upon these statements, taken to be true, a case of wrongful termination of pregnancy is made out. 5. The wife is stated to have left home. The husband did not know her whereabouts. She is stated to have been at railway station without any food and water for 5 hours. If the husband did not know about her whereabouts he cannot specifically state that she waited at railway station. The two allegations in the complaint taken as true, are completely contradictory. It cannot be assumed that the Complainant’s wife remained at railway station without taking any food and water. The food is available on all railway stations and there is nothing in the complaint to show that she did not consume any food. 6. The allegaton about shopping at Big Bazar for some hours is without any particulars. The accused cnnot be taken to have personal knowledge of facts of shopping at the Big Bazzar. 7. Further the allegation that the mother of his wife did not take medicines on 17.2.2007 when she was finally taken by her parents to 4 her maternal home also does not show any case made out for the offence alleged. Medicines can be purchased anywhere, even in Raipur. 8. The documents annexed to the Complaint are one medical report, Advocate’s notice, F.I.R. dated 20.6.2007, and information sent to the Judicial Magistrate at Raipur which is the maternal home of his wife. 9. The medical report must show the medical condition of his wife while she was stated to be 21 weeks pregnant. The original complainant in the R and P shows medical report dated January 2007. It shows that as on 3.1.2007 the Complainant’s wife was already 10 weeks pregant. It has nothing to do with the complaint filed by the Applicant. 10. The Notice annexed to the complaint sets out the legal position claimed by the Complainant. The Notice to the concerned Police Station, Raipur is also in respect of medical termination of pregnancy which is outside the jurisdiction of the court where the complaint was filed. Similar is the case filed before the J.M.F.C., Raipur. 11. The Learned Magistrate has issued process stating that a prima facie case is made out. How the case is made is not shown. It is not made upon satisfaction of the reasons stated in the complaint. The Learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik has considered the complaint on merits and concluded that the wife of the Complainant had a natural abortion on 14.3.2007 after being admitted from hospital on 13.3.2007. 5 Hence process is quashed by him by setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate. That order is correct since no offence is disclosed as sought to be charged upon reading his complaint. Hence, this Application is dismissed. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)