SRJ 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.214 OF 2010 Shri Jayant V. Badwe & Others .. Applicants. v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Another .. Respondents. Shri M.S.Mohite i/b. Hemant Kenjalkar and Kalpesh Thorawade, for Applicants. Smt. V.R.Bhosale, A.P.P. for for Respondent No.1. Shri Sayaji D. Nangre a/w. Ranjit M. Pawar, for Respondent No.2. CORAM : J. H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 6th JULY, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Respondent No.2, who is the Original Complainant, was married to Accused No.1 Devendra S/o. Applicant Nos.1 and 2 on 26th July, 2005. On 27th March, 2008, Respondent No.2 lodged an F.I.R. SRJ 2 at Khar Police Station, being CR. No.74 of 2008, under sections 498(a) and 406 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code as well as sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against her husband, father- in-law and mother-in-law. After investigation, police filed charge sheet, and it came to be registered as C.C.No.391/PW/2008 before Additional C.M.M. Vth Court, at Dadar. After filing of the charge sheet, Respondent No.2 filed an application before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, seeking directions for further investigation on the ground that many of her ornaments which were in custody of the accused were not seized by the police. The learned Magistrate after hearing Respondent No.2 and the concerned Police Officer, rejected the application vide order dated 7th October, 2009, holding that no case is made out for further investigation as the Police had already investigated the case and had searched the house of the present accused persons. That order was challenged by Respondent No.2 in Revision Application No.215 of 2009. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, by impugned order SRJ 3 dated 8th March, 2010 set aside the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and directed further investigation under section 173(8). That order is challenged in the present application by Original Accused Nos.2,3 and 4. They are parents and aunt of accused no.1- Devendra. 3. It is admitted fact that marriage had taken place on 26th July,2005. After completing the customary functions on 28th July, 2005, Respondent No.2 and her husband-Devendra went her parent s place at Khar and on the same day i.e. on 28th July, 2005, she along with her husband went to Pune, where the parents of Devendra were residing. In F.I.R., it is stated that on 30th July, 2005, Respondent No.2 and her husband left Pune to go to Bombay for onwards journey to U.S.A. to be undertaken on next day. However, only her husband s ticket was booked for 31 st July, 2005 and therefore, she remained at her parent s place. Her husband went alone to U.S.A. Her ticket was booked to go to U.S.A. for 28th August, 2005. Before going to U.S.A. she went to house of her SRJ 4 parents-in-law on 20th August, 2005 for Mangala Gauri festival. Thereafter, she never lived with her husband s parents. Respondent No.2 and her husband lived together for some time time in U.S.A., where both were having jobs. Later on she left U.S.A. and accepted a job at Bangalore and since then she is living there. It appears that the relations between husband and wife got stained and the husband filed Marriage Petition for divorce. After that, this F.I.R. was lodged. 4. The learned Counsel for the Applicants produced two e-mails sent by Respondent to her husband. First e-mail is dated 27th April, 2008, wherein the Respondent clearly told her husband that while going through jewellery, which was taken to India, she did not find the diamond earrings, that Pari had gifted to her. She also told her husband that he would find the earrings in the side table by bed side. In the second para of the e-mail she asked him not to look for anything else, because earrings, necklace and mangalsutra that her mother-in-law had given to her for the wedding and also neckless, kadas, SRJ 5 earrings and Laxmi coin which were given to her by her mother so also rest of the silverware from her mother side were lying at their house in U.S.A. She also stated that the mangalsutra which was given by her mother was lying safe with her mother-in-law. She wanted only the diamond earrings to be searched. 5. The second e-mail dated 12th July, 2006 from Respondent No.2 to her husband shows that she had asked her mother-in-law to send one small mangalsutra which was given to her by Aai i.e. her mother-in-law at the time of her marriage. However, her mother-in-law had sent not only that mangalsutra but also some more mangalsutra s. From this it appears that the mangalsutra given to her by her mother-in-law and which was lying with her monther-in-law, was also returned to her. The Respondent No.2 admitted that she had sent e-mails which were produced. Taking into consideration the material, it is clear that when she left her husband s house in U.S.A., she had possibly forgotten diamond earrings given to her by one Pari and all other ornaments were taken away by SRJ 6 her. Even one more mangalsutra given to her by her mother was also given to her by her mother-in-law and thus no ornament of Respondent No.2 was lying at the house of her in-laws. 6. The police had admittedly taken search of the house of the present applicants and no ornaments belonging to the Respondent No.2 was found their. Police filed a charge sheet after investigation. In the application made by applicants for further investigation under section 173(8) of Criminal Procedure Code, no new material was given and in fact, her e-mails referred above show that none of her ornaments were lying with any of the applicants. Taking into consideration these circumstances, I find no justification for further investigation. 7. In the aforesaid situation, the impugned order dated 8th March, 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge is hereby set aside and order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is hereby restored to file. [J.H.BHATIA,J. ] SRJ 7