Bombay High CourtABA/770/2016allowed

Rameshwar Uttam Chavhan And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer Lonar Police Station Lonar

2017-06-07Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 aba770.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRI. APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 770 OF 2016 (RAMESHWAR UTTAM CHAVHAN & ANR...VS.. STATE OF MAH. THR. P.S.O. LONAR, DIST. BULDHANA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.C.Dharmadhikari, Advocate for applicants. Shri T.A.Mirza, A.P.P. for Non-applicant.

CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : JUNE 07, 2017.

Heard.

The facts on record show that the marriage between the applicant No.1 and the complainant was solemnized in 2004. The accusations against the applicant No.1 (husband of complainant) and applicant No.2 (brother of applicant No.1) are that on the date of incident the complainant was beaten and some poisonous substance was poured in her mouth. Crime for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is registered against the applicants as well as against father and mother of the applicants. Father and mother of the applicants are granted pre-arrest bail. By order passed on 24th November, 2016 this Court granted interim protection to the applicant which continues till date. Though in the reply filed by the nonapplicant opposing the application it is alleged that the applicants are not co-operating with the Investigating Officer and their custodial interrogation is necessary to recover the

2 aba770.16 tin of insecticides from which the complainant was administered poison, the non-applicant has not pointed out why steps were not taken to get the interim order vacated and why it has not proceeded with the further investigation. In the above facts, in my view, the interim order granted on 24th November, 2016 is required to be confirmed. The application is allowed accordingly.

JUDGE RRaut..