VIKAS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith.

(2.) The applicant Vikas questions process issued, dated 21.1.2011 under Section 497 of IPC by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shegaon. Respondent Suresh alleged of illicit sexual relations between his wife Sangita and the petitioner. However, reading the complaint petition as a whole, it is explicit, he had not ventured to see such events, in the compromising position. He has canvassed, having learnt it from the villagers and his mother; which may be correct but, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at the time of recording verification, mother or independent witness is not put in.

(3.) The prosecution, indeed, has a prelude as the petitioner has, way back in the year 2010, initiated proceedings for offense under Sections 379, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC against respondent Suresh by Criminal complaint No. 18/2010 wherein report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was called. The acrimonious relations between petitioner and Suresh were even revealed and published in a public notice dated 20.9.2010 by respondent, making identical allegations and also intention of Smt. Sangita to dispose of certain immoveable properties. Feeling estranged and annoyed by such public notice, Advocate's notice dated 27.9.2010 was served by petitioner upon Suresh intimating his intention to prosecute for offense of defamation. Even Smt. Sangita, by Criminal Case No. 225/2010, owing to the said publication of notice dated 20th Sept., 2010, has prosecuted Suresh for offense under Sections 499, 500 read with Section 34 of IPC.