This court considered an application challenging a Sessions Court order under Section 494 IPC. The court found the issuance of process proper despite lack of specific allegations, holding no interference was called for.
Application stands dismissed. No interference with the impugned order of issue process.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-:(1):-
1435
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1435 OF 2015
MRS. SUREKHA W/O RAVINDRA SHINDE VERSUS RAVINDRA S/O NARAYAN SHINDE & ORS
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. P. B. Rakhunde, Advocate h/f Mr. Bhapkar S. B. Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 7: Mr. C. K. Shinde. ***
CORAM: T. V. NALAWADE, J. DATED: 22nd JUNE, 2015.
PER COURT:
1 of 3
1435
-:(2):-
2 of 3
1435
-:(3):-
between accused Nos.1 and 2 and they gave information to her. The list of witnesses do not contain name of any witness who had witnessed the second marriage. Learned counsel for the accused , relied on the case of “ Yashwant Bhavdu Patil and others V/s State of Maharashtra and anothe ” reported in 2006 ALL MR 2479 Aurangabad Bench and “ Prakash S/o. Limbaji Dhole V/s The State of Maharashtra And Another ” reported in 2013 All MR (Cri.) 3886 Aurangabad Bench. This Court has gone through the observations made. In the present case it is not case of personal knowledge and she has no witness who witnessed second marriage. In spite of these circumstances, the learned Judge issued process. This Court holds that the Sessions Court has not made any error. No interference is called. The application stands dismissed.
[T. V. NALAWADE, J.]
Dt.22/06/2015 ans/1435
3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of issue process issued by the Sessions Court under Sections 494 read with 34 IPC where specific allegations against accused were lacking.
Whether the absence of witnesses to the second marriage and reliance solely on the complaint justified the issuance of process.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Yashwant Bhavdu Patil and others V/s State of Maharashtra and anotherReferred¶20
Yashwant Bhavdu Patil and others V/s State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2006 ALL MR 2479
Prakash S/o. Limbaji Dhole V/s The State of Maharashtra And AnotherReferred¶20
Prakash S/o. Limbaji Dhole V/s The State of Maharashtra And Another reported in 2013 All MR (Cri.) 3886
3 provisions across 2 enactments
MRS. SUREKHA W/O RAVINDRA SHINDE
RAVINDRA S/O NARAYAN SHINDE
T. V. NALAWADE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
