Allowed

Shahin Afjal Tamboli v. Police Inspector Baramati Police St. and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Aug 2004WP/200/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition regarding alleged domestic assault causing miscarriage, the Court held that while Section 315 IPC is maintainable, Section 316 IPC is not due to the absence of a quick unborn child. The petition was allowed to direct the State to add Section 315 IPC charge.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Writ Petition stood allowed to limited extent ordering the State to add charge under Section 315 IPC.

Shahin Afjal Tamboli Vs Police Inspector Baramati Police… — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2004)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.200 OF 2004 Shahin Afijal Tamboli ...Petitioner Vs. Police Inspector, Baramati Police Station and Others. ...Respondents .... Mr.Vijay Killedar Advocate for Petitioner Mr.A.S.Gadkari, A.P.P. for the State .... CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE : AUGUST 16,2004 P.C.:

¶3

Heard Mr.Killedar for the Petitioner. Mr.A.S.Gadkari appears for the State.

¶4

2.	The	grieva	nce	of the Petitione	r is	that	though
she w	as ass	aulted	on	stomach by	her	husband	when
she	was p	regnant		and though, accordi	ng to	her,	it
led	to abor	tion,	P	olice have not	charged	the	accused
under	Sections	315		and 316 of IPC.	M	r.Gadkari	has
shown	the	medical		papers which	sho	w that	the
complainant	had	miss	ed	two menstrual	cycles.	It	is
at that	stage	that	on	1st July, 200	3 that	the	husband
of the	Petitioner	is	s	tated to have	kicked	her in	her
abdomen.	She	was		required to und	ergo	curreting	which
was perf	ormed on	31st		July, 2003. It	will	be a	point
to be	examined	as	t	o whether there	was	any co	nnection
between	the	ass	ault	and the	resultant	con	sequence
thereof.	In	an	y	way, Mr.Gadkari	appearin	g for	the

¶5

-2-

¶6

Respondents makes a statement that he has instructions to leave it to the Court to pass appropriate orders.

¶7

3.	Having	no	ted	t	he fac	ts as abo	ve,	we	do feel	that
there	is	a	prima		facie	arguable	case	for	an	action
under	Section	315	of		IPC	though as	far	as	Section	316
of	IPC	is	con	c	erned,	it requires	a	"q	uick	unborn
child"	which	is	a		phr	ase used		to	describe	the
peculiar	se	nsation	e	x	perienced	by w	oman	aft	er	about
4th o	r 5th	mont	h o	f	preg	nancy.	That	is	certainly	not
the	situation		in	t	he pr	esent case.		The	State	will
therefore,	add		the		charge	under Se	ction	315	of	IPC
and	file	an	a	d	ditional	charge-shee	t	before	the	trial

¶8

Court. The petition stands allowed to this limited

¶9

extent.

¶10

. Authenticated copy be made available to the parties.

¶11

[ H.L.GOKHALE,J. ]

¶12

[ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]

Shahin Afjal Tamboli v. Police Inspector Baramati Police St. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahin Afjal Tamboli v. Police Inspector Baramati Police St. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neel Mahendra Murali Kumar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pravin Dhabolkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chandrashekar Shivmurat Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Raghunath Ganpat Kalekar and Ors. Vs the Registrar (Inspection) High Court and Ors.

Shree Samarth Mitra Mandal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Raju Raghunath Lohot Vs the State of Maharashtra