VIJAY KASAR Vs. SUSHMA ALIAS VINITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal dtd. 13/2/2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg in Complaint Case No. 439/08 whereby respondents/accused have been acquitted of the charge under Sec. 500 of the Indian Penal Code (henceforth "the IPC").

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that appellant/complainant filed compliant case under Sections 193, 196 and 500 of the IPC against the respondents/accused before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg stating that respondent No. 1 had filed MJC Case No. 157/98 against her husband to grant her maintenance under Sec. 125 of the CrPC. In that case, appellant/complainant, being an Advocate, defended her husband, thereafter, respondent No. 1/accused filed another complaint being Complaint case No. 368/98 under Sections 494, 498, 323, 506-A of the IPC before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg against her husband and his family members. In that case, respondent No. 1 malafidely impleaded appellant/complaint and his mother and brother only because appellant had defended her husband in the aforesaid maintenance case. In Complaint Case No. 368/98, she has falsely implicated the appellant/complainant and given false statement before the Court that appellant was part of second marriage of Smt. Gayatri (Accused No. 4) and they are her relatives whereas neither they are relatives of Smt. Gayatri nor they have performed her second marriage, thereby, she has fabricated false evidence. Complaint case No. 368/98 had been registered against accused persons including appellant and his mother and brother also. On being summoned by the Court, they appeared and filed their preliminary objection against the registration of the case against appellant and his mother and brother. Their preliminary objection was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg and vide order dtd. 26.5.1999, they were discharged from the complaint Case No. 368/98. Revision preferred against that order was also dismissed by Third Upper Sessions Judge, Durg vide order dtd. 4/12/1999.

(3.) Thereafter, the appellant/complainant filed present Criminal Complaint Case No. 439/08 stating that since respondent No. 1 had created and given false evidence against him in complaint case No. 368/98 and respondent No. 2/accused, who is brother-in-law of respondent No. 1, had commented knowingly on the profession of the appellant/complainant that since in the case of maintenance filed by her sister in law (respondent No. 1), appellant/complainant had defended her husband, therefore, they have pulled them [appellant and his mother and brother] in the court and now his advocacy will be ruined and colour of his coat would be fade.