SUSHMITA LALCHAND YADAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision Applicant is challenging the order dtd. 24/4/2024 passed below Exhibit '12' in Session Case No. 88 of 2022 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Panvel ' Raigad (for short 'Trial Court'). Applicant is the accused. Trial Court has rejected the discharge Application of Applicant seeking discharge from the offence punishable under Sec. 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC"). Hence, the present Criminal Revision Application (for short 'CRA') under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'Cr.PC').

(2.) Before I advert to the submissions made by the learned Advocates, the following facts of the case are summarised for consideration:-

(3.) Mr. Singh, learned Advocate for Applicant would submit that there are three allegations in the FIR alleged by wife of deceased against Applicant. He would submit that all three allegations are vague, insufficient and without any evidence, much less prima facie evidence having placed on record. Hence, the plea of discharge. While drawing my attention to page No.45 in the FIR in the first instance it is alleged that the wife gave 15 tola gold to the deceased to pledge the same with Federal Bank and paid that amount to Applicant. As against this allegation, he has drawn my attention to page No.79 of the Bank Account Statement and the entry reflecting receipt of the amount of Rs.3,75,000.00 in the deceased's Bank Account and immediately thereafter on the same date he having paid of Rs.3,38,566.00 in respect of Pay Off of his another Loan Account No.14756200025550. He would contend that as alleged by prosecution, the alleged amount of Rs.3,75,000.00 is not received by deceased in cash from the Bank and paid to Applicant. Hence, on this count the allegation in the FIR is completely false on the basis of the prosecution record itself.