VINOD PANDIT SALVE Vs. SUVARNA PRASHANT SALVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioners/accused nos.3 and 4 are taking exception to the Judgment and order dated 11.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, in Criminal Revision Application No.256/2017. By this impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to allow the revision petition filed by the original complainant partly and was pleased to set aside the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate so far as it relates to discharging the petitioners/original accused nos. 3 and 4 from the offences punishable under Section 494 and 109 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Discharge of original accused No.2 was, however, confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(2.) Heard. Rule. Heard finally by consent of the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners/original accused nos. 1 and 2 vehemently argued that the Agreement of Marriage dated 15.8.2009 has been changed from time to time by the contesting respondent/original complainant. In second such document name Sandhya is incorporated. She placed reliance on the statement of Vasant Ahire, Suvarna Salvi and other witnesses recorded in some other proceedings and contended that in the complaint, averments are vague. It is further argued that no custom was pleaded in the complaint. Time and date of the marriage was also not mentioned in the complaint and therefore, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was right in discharging the petitioners/original accused.

(3.) As against this, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent/original complainant has supported the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai.