Dismissed

Rohini @ Niyati Nitin Kothari v. Mehgana Madhumilind Deshpande and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Oct 2006WP/1068/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petition by a victim challenging a Session Court order that partially discharged the first respondent from offences under Ss. 498-A, 323, 504 read with 34 IPC. The bench held that Section 498-A applies only to husbands and relatives of the woman; since the respondent was not a relative, the discharge on that count was lawful. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Petition was dismissed.

Rohini @ Niyati Nitin Kothari Vs Mehgana Madhumilind… — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1068 OF 2006

¶3

Rohini @ Niyati Nitin Kothari

¶4

...Petitioner

¶5

vs.

¶6

Meghana Madhumilind Deshpande & Anr.

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Ms Lalita Panchakshri with Ms S.S.Dongare for the Petitioner Mr.U.V.Nikam,A.P.P. for State

¶9

CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. DATE : OCTOBER 3,2006.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1.	Heard Advocate	appearing for the	Petitioner		wh	o is	the
first i	nformant. T	he Petitioner lodge	d F.I.R.			against	her
husband	and against	the first R	espondent			herein	alleging
commission	of offences	punishable under	section	s		498-A,	323,
504 read	with 34	of the Indian	Penal		Code.	Th	e first
Respondent	applied for	discharge before	the		le	arned	Magistrate
on the	ground she	is not a relative	of the		husb	and o	f the
Petitioner.	The said	Application was	rejected			by the	learned
Magistrate.	Being ag	grieved by the	said	o	rder,	the	first
Respondent	filed a Rev	ision Application	in t	h	e	Sessions	Court.
By the	impugned o	rder, the Revision	Appli	c	ation	has	been
partly	allowed and	the first Respond	ent has		be	en	discharged
for the	offence under	section 498-A	of		the	said	Code.

¶12

However, the application for discharge made by the first

¶13

Respondent as regards other offences has been rejected.

¶14

2.	The		learned	Advocate	for	the	Petitioner	did	not		dispute
that	the	first	Respon	dent is	not	a	relative	of	the	husband	of

¶15

¶16

the Petitioner.		She,	however, s	ubmitted		that the	first
Respondent is	staying	with	the husband	of	the	Petitioner.	She

¶17

submitted that a wider meaning will have to be given to the

¶18

word relative used in section 498-A of the said Code.

¶19

3.	A	dmitted	ly,	the fi	rst R	espond	ent i	s	not a	relative	of	the
husband	of	the	Pe	titioner.	T	he	offence		under	section	498-A	of
the said		Code	can	be	alleged	only	aga	inst	the	husband	and/or	a
relative	of	the	husb	and of	a	wom	an.		When a	dmittedly	the	first
respondent		is	not	a	relative	of	the		Petitioner’s	husba	nd,	it
is o	bviou	s th	at	section	498-A	of	the	sai	d Code	will	not	apply
and	that	is	the	reason	why	the	Sess	ions	Court	has	disc	harged
the	first	Res	ponden	t only	in	so	far	as	offence	under	s	ection

¶20

498-A of the said Code is concerned. There is no error in the

¶21

impugned order. Petition is rejected.

¶22

JUDGE

Rohini @ Niyati Nitin Kothari v. Mehgana Madhumilind Deshpande and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohini @ Niyati Nitin Kothari v. Mehgana Madhumilind Deshpande and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudeep Pradipkumar Pal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chandrashekhar Madhav Kshirsagar Vs Prakash Ramchandra Toradmal and Anr.

Ranjitsingh Anupsingh Anand Vs Manpreet Ranjitsingh Anand and Anr.

Mahesh Sadanand Majti Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sudha Ravi Vs Nazir Mohammed Hussain and Anr.

Lilatai Visshwanath Patil Vs Anantprasad Vedavyasa Umerji and Anr.