← Library
Bombay High CourtAPPLN/6863/2015disposed off

Shakuntaladevi Rameshchandra Ken And Other v. The State Ofmaharashtra And ANR

2016-02-10Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.V. Nirgude,Hon'Ble Kum. Justice I.K. Jain2 pages

( 1 ) cria6863.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6863 OF 2015 Shakuntaladevi Rameshchandra Ken ..

Applicants

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

..

Respondents Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for the applicants. Mrs.R.K. Ladda, A.P.P. for respondent/State.

Mr. N.L. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : A.V.NIRGUDE & INDIRA K.JAIN, JJ.

DATED :

10.02.2016 P.C. :- 1.

This application seeks quashing of Crime No.26 of 2015 of Nardana Police Station as against applicants who are accused Nos.2 to 8. This is a case of dowry death. It is alleged that Sudha-wife of main accused No.1-Sanjay Kumar died in suspicious circumstances on 19.04.2015 at village Nardana. The post-mortem reveals that she died of strangulation. During investigation, it was revealed that Sudha was harassed over demand of dowry by her husband and in-laws. The investigation, however, further revealed that during the time of incident applicant Nos.1,2,4,5,6 and 7 were not residing at village Nardana. They were residing near Agra (U.P.).

( 2 ) cria6863.15 There is no clear material to indicate that these applicants except applicant No.3 had occasion to visit the deceased and harass her at village Nardana. It is revealed from the police papers that applicant No.3-Bunty resided with deceased and her husband at village Nardana. Applicant No.3, therefore, can be said to be proximate to the incident. It has come on record that Sudha was married to Sanjay who is resident of Uttar Pradesh and was required to come and stay at village Nardana on account of his railway job. In view of this, deceased as well as her in-laws were stranger to village Nardana. The material so far collected does not make out strong case against applicant Nos.1,2,4 to 7. We are, therefore, inclined to set aside the crime as against applicant Nos. 1,2,4 to 7. The investigation as against remaining accused should continue.

2.

The criminal application is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

[INDIRA K.JAIN,J.] [A.V.NIRGUDE,J.] /2016/ 16/ snk FEB /cria6863.15