ANITA VILAS BANDUKEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:46351


                                                                           394.06revn
                                                  (1)

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      903 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 394 OF 2006

                                    ANITA VILAS BANDUKE
                                           VERSUS
                             THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
                                                  …..
                 Mr R. B. Deshpande, Advocate for Applicant
                 Mr M. A. Aher, APP for Respondent No.1/State
                                                …..

                                           CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                             DATE : 01st OCTOBER, 2026

                 P. C. :


                 1.          Heard learned Advocate Mr Deshpande for the applicant

                 and learned APP for respondent No.1/State.


                 2.          The applicant is challenging the order dated 22/08/2006,

                 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC),

                 Gangakhed, whereby accused Nos.1 to 6 came to be acquitted for the

                 offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with

                 Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.


                 3.          The applicant was married with respondent No.2 on

                 09/05/2004 at village Sayala, Tq. Palam, Dist. Parbhani.      After

                 marriage, she went for cohabitation at Nanded where she resided for
                                                            394.06revn
                                 (2)

eight days. Thereafter, the complainant and respondent No.2/husband

shifted to Gangakhed. The complainant thereafter alleged to have filed

complaint of ill-treatment meted out at the hands of husband and her

in-laws before the Gangakhed Police Station which came to be

registered as C.R. No.146/2004 for the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code. On the basis of said complaint, investigation came to be carried

out and charge-sheet was filed in R.C.C. No.268/2004 before the

learned JMFC, Gangakhed.       In pursuance of the said prosecution,

evidence came to be recorded and total six accused persons came to be

acquitted by the learned JMFC vide impugned order dated 22/08/2006.


4.           According to Mr Deshpande, learned Advocate for the

applicant, the learned JMFC committed a grave error in acquitting

accused persons.     According to him, the prosecution has duly

established before the learned JMFC that the accused persons are

involved in the commission of aforesaid crime, and as such, the

impugned judgment and order, passed by the learned JMFC is patently

illegal.   He, therefore, prays for allowing of the instant criminal

revision by setting aside the judgment and order dated 22/08/2006,

passed by the learned JMFC Gangakhed in R.C.C. No.268/2004.
                                                             394.06revn
                                  (3)

5.          Learned APP Mr Aher also supports the submissions of

learned Advocate Mr Deshpande for the applicant and prays for

allowing the present criminal revision application.


6.          With the assistance of the learned Advocates for the

parties, I have gone through the impugned judgment and order,

particularly paragraph Nos.12 and 13 thereof.         Learned Judicial

Magistrate, while acquitting the accused persons had given detailed

reasons in paragraph Nos.12 and 13 in his judgment. In paragraph

No.12, it was observed that marriage of complainant and respondent

No.2 was solemnized on 09/05/2004 and the complaint is filed within

very short time of marriage life i.e. on 18/09/2004.      It was also

observed that, there is no evidence on record to show that as to how

much period the complainant was residing with her in-laws. It was

also observed that the complainant had received notice for restitution

of conjugal rights issued by respondents and complainant had also

appeared in the said petition filed by her husband at Nanded. Against

this background, it is evident that the complainant did not resume

cohabitation, particularly, during the period she resided at Gangakhed.

The testimony of the complainant, therefore, was not found to be

sufficient to prove the cruelty as contemplated under Section 498-A of

the Indian Penal Code.
                                                             394.06revn
                                  (4)

7.          In pursuance of the aforesaid paragraphs, I found that,

there is no error on the part of learned JMFC in acquitting the accused

persons.   Since there is no valid reason to entertain this revision

application, I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdictional powers

under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, this

criminal revision application is dismissed.




                                    [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]
sjk