Dismissed

Sau. Umadevi Ashokrao Kumbhar . v. Shri Ashok Ananda Kumbhar and Ors. .

Bombay HC4 Aug 2006APPLN/2138/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Application sought leave to appeal an acquittal in a Section 498-A IPC case. The High Court found the appellant filed the complaint after 12 years of marriage and persisted despite 15 years passing after the incident. The court held the evidence was inconsistent and the application to harass the in-laws, refusing leave.

What did the court decide?

Leave to file appeal refused; Criminal Application dismissed; Appeal does not survive.

Sau. Umadevi Ashokrao Kumbhar . Vs Shri Ashok Ananda… — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

¶4

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2138 OF 2000

¶5

 WITH

¶6

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3877 OF 2000

¶7

IN

¶8

 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.365 OF 2000

¶9

 Sou.Umadevi Ashokrao Kumbhar : Appellant

¶10

 versus

¶11

 Shri Ashok Ananda Kumbhar

¶12

 and ors. : Respondents.

¶13

 Mr.Milind Deshmukh for the appellant.

¶14

 Mrs.A.S.Pai, APP, for the State.

¶15

CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE

¶16

 S.A.BOBDE, JJ.

¶17

 DATED : AUGUST 04, 2006.

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

 1. Heard the advocate Mr.Deshmukh for the
 appellant/original complainant and learned APP

¶20

¶21

 Mrs.Pai for the State. Though the

¶22

 respondents/accused are served, nobody is present
 for them.

¶23

 2. So far as Criminal Application No.3877 of
 2000 is concerned, it is for condonation of delay
 of seven days. The learned APP has no serious
 objection to condoned the delay. Hence the Delay
 is condoned. Criminal Application is disposed
 of.

¶24

 3. So far as Criminal Application No.2138 of
 2000 is concerned, it is for leave to file
 appeal. By consent Rule, returnable forthwith.
 Heard.

¶25

 4. The petitioner is the wife. She has
 filed a complaint against all her in-laws who
 were seven in number, as per Criminal Case No.196
 of 1991. All the in-laws were implicated. It
 was a case under Section 498-A of the Indian
 Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry
 Prohibition Act read with Section 34 of the
 Indian Penal Code. She was married to accused
 No.1 in 1979. Two children were born in 1986 and
 1988. Incident of beating took place in 1981 and

¶26

¶27

 1989. After a full-fledged trial, the trial
 court acquitted the accused. Hence this
 application being Application No.2138 of 2000 for
 leave to file Appeal No.365 of 2000.

¶28

 5. The complainant/appellant was married
 with Respondent No.1 in 1979. She filed her
 complaint before JMFC, Malshiras in 1991 i.e.
 after 12 years of the marriage. That matter came
 to be decided after 9 years i.e. in 2000 and
 this appeal was filed in 2000 coming before for
 leave in 2006.

¶29

 6. In her complaint, the appellant had

¶30

 joined all her in-laws. The trial court, after
 considering all evidence adduced, acquitted the
 accused. The complaint was in respect of cruel
 treatment over demand of money. On the face of
 it, we find that if the marriage took place in
 1979, then filing complaint in 1991 and pursuing
 the matter after 15 years thereafter till this
 date in spite of acquittal is nothing but an
 attempt to harass the in-laws.

¶31

 7. The complainant examined herself, her
 father and one Kisan Bhandare. The ill-treatment

¶32

¶33

 was started to her four years after the marriage.
 Because at the time of marriage the accused was
 studying and he continued his study four years
 thereafter. The alleged ill-treatment were about
 not providing her with food and clothes. She
 admitted that till 1989 she was living happy
 married life and there was no harassment for
 purchasing the land. According to her father, no
 harassment was given till 3rd child was
 delivered.

¶34

 8. The court, after scrutinizing the
 evidence on record, found that it was
 inconsistent and contrary to each other.

¶35

 Therefore, in these circumstances this is not a
 case where acquittal is required to be interfered
 with.

¶36

 9. For all these reasons, leave is refused.
 Criminal Application No.2138 2000 is dismissed.
 Rule is discharged. Appeal No.365 of 2000 does
 not survive. It is disposed of.

¶37

 [D.G.DESHPANDE,J]

¶38

 [S.A.BOBDE, J]

Sau. Umadevi Ashokrao Kumbhar . v. Shri Ashok Ananda Kumbhar and Ors. .

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sau. Umadevi Ashokrao Kumbhar . v. Shri Ashok Ananda Kumbhar 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

Ananta Vasant Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Krushnath Bapu Gawade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sudarshan @ Babu Motilal Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sindhubai Bhagwan @ Pratap Bhosale @ Pitekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prakash Vasantrao Deshmukh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hanif Haroon Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra