Dismissed

State of Maharashtra v. Devanand Madhukarrao Kamdi and Another

Bombay HC23 Jun 2015APEAL/24/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench dismissed the State's criminal appeal against an acquittal. The single-judge bench held that the trial court correctly found no offence under Section 498-A IPC proved, as the root cause was the wife's sex and the husband-wife relationship ended via a Release Deed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2003 is dismissed.

State of Maharashtra Vs Devanand Madhukarrao Kamdi and… — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2003 (State of Maharashtra thr PSO PS Arvi, Dist- Wradha V Devanand Kamdi and another)

¶4

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders

¶5

or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶6

[Shri V.A. Thakare, APP for State.
 Shri S.D. Dharaskar, Adv for respondents]

¶7

CORAM: A.B. CHAUDHARI,J.
DATED: 23.06.2015.

¶8

Heard the learned Counsel for the

¶9

rival parties.

¶10

This is an appeal preferred by the
State against the judgment and order passed in
Regular Criminal Case No.37 of 1997 by the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arvi on
04-09-2002 acquitting the respondents.

¶11

In support of the appeal Shri Thakare,
the learned APP for the State submitted that
the impugned judgment suffers from perversity
and therefore deserves to be set aside and
accused be convicted.

¶12

Per contra, Shri Dharaskar, the
learned Counsel for the respondents submitted
that the order of acquittal cannot be
interfered with because the trial Court
rightly found that no offence under Section
498-A of the Indian Penal Code was proved.

¶13

¶14

I have perused the impugned judgment
and order. I have perused the evidence of
complainant Sau. Meena, so also FIR. I have
perused Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Upon reading of FIR and evidence, it appears
that the husband of Meena did not find her sex
in order. There is no other evidence about
cruelty as contemplated by Section 498-A of the
Indian Penal Code for which the respondents
could be held guilty. The root cause appears
to be the sex of Meena, but then offence under
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code for
whatever happened was not proved.

¶15

Shri Thakare, the learned APP fairly
pointed out to me the papers about divorce and
submitted that finally husband and wife parted
way by the said document styled as �Release
Deed�. In the above facts and circumstances,I
think no interference should be made with the
impugned order and judgment. Hence, I make the
following order :-

¶16

Order

¶17

 Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2003 is dismissed.

¶18

 JUDGE

¶19

Deshmukh

State of Maharashtra v. Devanand Madhukarrao Kamdi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Maharashtra v. Devanand Madhukarrao Kamdi and Another

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

State of Mah.Thr.P.S.O.Ajni,Ngp. Vs Digambar Laxmanrao Kothe.

Central Bureau of Investigation, Acb, Nagpur Vs Madan S/O Govindrao Nasare and Another

Jagdish S/O Sukhdeo Meshram Vs the State of Maharashtra through Anti Corruption Bureau, Yavatmal

Nirmala Devidas Chavan and Another Vs State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S. Manora, Washim and 2 Others

Smt. Ahilyabai Wd/O Shankarrao Sonare Vs Pradip Krushnarao Jarngade and 4 Others

Abdul Karim S/O Samrodding Vs State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Ramdaspeth, P.S. Akola and 3 Others