(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 460 of 2010 Kavita w/o. Vishwambhar Wadve, Age : 32 years, .. Appellant Occupation : Household, (Original R/o. Krantinagar, Aurangabad. complainant) versus 1. Rameshwar s/o. Namdeo Wadve, .. Respondent no.1 Age : 24 years, (Original accused) Occupation : Private Service, R/o. House No. 298, Krantinagar, Aurangabad. 2. Kashinath s/o. Sadashiv Nagrale, .. Application abated Age : 62 years, as against Occupation : Nil, respondent no.2. R/o. Krantinagar, Aurangabad. ....................... Mr. S.A. Nagarsoge, Advocate, holding for Mr. N.L. Jadhav, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. A.D. Sugdare, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Application is abated as against respondent no.2 as per court's order dated 20-4-2011. ........................ (2) CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 20TH JUNE 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant (original complainant) seeking leave to file appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 3rd October 2009, rendered by the learned 11th Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Aurangabad, in Regular Criminal Case No. 1234/2007, thereby acquitting the respondent (original accused) for the offence punishable under Section 420, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Parties are referred as per their original status i.e. complainant and accused. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows : The complainant is wife of brother of accused no.1, whereas accused no.2 is their relative. The complainant married with one Vishwambhar Wadve, on 12-7-1998. However, her (3) husband expired on 25-8-2005. It is alleged that prior to death of husband of complainant, he had purchased house property bearing No. 5-10-30/298 at Krantinagar, Aurangabad, on 24-11-2000 from one Rambhau Natha Kamble and he possessed the same from the owner. However, it is alleged that the accused no.2 sold the said property to accused no.1 by preparing false affidavits. It is also alleged that the complainant's husband owned motorcycle of CD Dawn Company, bearing No. MH-20/AN-6007, but accused no.1 sold the said motorcycle with the connivance of officers of ICICI Bank. It is further alleged that the accused persons grabbed and misappropriated Stridhan of complainant in collusion with each other. Hence, the complainant lodged complaint with the concerned Police Station, but no cognizance thereof was taken. Hence, the complainant filed private complaint and process was issued against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC on 20-11-2007. Accordingly, accused appeared therein and faced trial for the said charges. However, considering the evidence on record, learned Judge of the trial court acquitted the accused by the impugned judgment and order dated 3rd October 2009. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order dated 3rd October 2009, the original (4) complainant has preferred the present application seeking leave to file appeal. 6. I have perused the impugned judgment dated 3rd October 2009 and perused record and proceedings with the assistance of learned Counsel for parties. 7. To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused persons, the complainant examined herself and another witness namely, Sukhdeorao Dhepe. Moreover, the complainant also produced the agreement dated 24-11-2000 at Exhibit 44, and the agreement dated 6-7-2000 at Exhibit 36. It appears that the above referred agreement dated 24-11-2000 was admitted by the accused which bear signatures of husband of the complainant and accused no.2. Moreover, other agreement dated 6-7-2000 Exhibit 36 was executed by the husband of the complainant in favour of accused no.2 and the same also was admitted by the accused. Hence, since both the agreements were admitted by the accused, same were exhibited. However, in the said context, learned trial court has observed that though the said agreement was admitted by the accused, the contents thereof were not proved by the complainant. It is further observed by the learned trial court, that although it is alleged that the accused no.2 has executed document in favour of accused no.1 and false documents were (5) prepared in that respect, but the said document has not been produced on record and, therefore, the complainant has not proved that the accused no.2 prepared false document in favour of accused no.1 and sold the house, and apparently there is no flaw in the said reasoning. 8. As regards another allegation made by the complainant, that motorcycle bearing No. MH-20/AN-6007 of CD Dawn Company owned by the complainant's husband was sold by accused no.1 in connivance of officers of ICICI Bank, in the said context, learned trial court has observed that to whom said vehicle was sold has not been proved and established by the complainant herein, as well as, the complainant has not produced any document to prove and establish that her husband paid instalments of the said vehicle regularly, as well as, the complainant has not impleaded the concerned officer of ICICI Bank in the present complaint as accused and no reason has been mentioned therefor and hence, consequently, the complainant has failed to establish that the accused has sold the said vehicle, as alleged, and the reasoning given in respect of the said allegation by the learned trial court also cannot be faulted with. 9. As regards the next allegation of the complainant, that the accused persons grabbed her Stridhan and misappropriated it (6) in collusion with each other, and in the said context, learned trial court has observed that admittedly, the complainant has filed proceedings before Family Court for the recovery of said Stridhan and direction was given to hand over said Stridhan to her, but thereafter her husband expired and the complainant has not filed execution proceedings for recovery of the said Stridhan, before Family Court and hence, there is no substance in the said grievance, and reasoning given therefor by learned trial court does not appear to be erroneous. 10. Having comprehensive view of the matter, it appears that the ingredients of cheating are apparently absent in the present case and, therefore, after scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence on record, the view adopted by the learned trial court, while acquitting the accused, is a possible view and the same does not appear to be perverse and hence, therefore, no interference is called in appellate jurisdiction, and application deserves to be rejected. 11. In the result, present Criminal Application which is sans merits, stands dismissed and leave to file appeal is refused. (7) 12. Record and proceedings be sent to the concerned court. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/ka460