VILAS GOVARDHAN YADAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.</Jpara> <Jpara>[2] AT the outset Mr. Kakade, learned counsel for the petitioner makes a statement that applicants Nos. 3 and 4 have expired, pending this application. Therefore, he is given liberty to delete the names of applicants Nos. 3 and 4.

(3.) There is no dispute that the petitioner and Respondent No. 3 lived together for a short period of about3 months between 19-5-94 to 18-8-94 and in November, 1994 the applicant No. 1 had filed Marriage Petition No. 149/94 for annulment of marriage on the ground that respondent No. 3 was physically unfit for matrimonial relations. She had contested that petition by filing written statement. Record reveals that on8-6-95 her evidence was also recorded in the said petition before the Family Court. In that evidence also she nowhere alleged any ill-treatment at the hands of husband or other in laws on the ground of demand of money etc. She in fact, went on to state that they had sexual relations but she admitted that on medical examination doctor had told that she was suffering from Nanudis and therefore, she do not get her menses. She also deposed that her relatives had tried to convince her husband to continue cohabitation but he was not ready. From all these circumstances, it is clear that for a period of about20 months after leaving the house of her husband, she had not made any grievance about any ill-treatment or about the demand of money by husband or his relatives. Taking into consideration these circumstances, it appears that the F. I. R. was lodged only as a counter blast to the litigation commenced by the husband. It is also conceded that in 1999 the Family Court has already granted divorce to the applicant No. 1 on the ground of decision and the said judgment and decree are not challenged by Respondent No. 3 by preferring any appeal. Ms. Chate, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 makes a statement that the Respondent No. 3 is no more interested in the present Criminal Application. It may be noted that this Court had by an order dated10-6-1996 granted interim relief not to file charge-sheet in Crime No. I-121/96. That order was modified on6-4-2004 and investigating officer was allowed to file charge-sheet but a direction was given that if the charge-sheet is filed, the trial would not commence. Shri. Shinde, learned A. P. P. makes a statement on written instructions from P. S. I. Gore of Jawahar Nagar Police Station that charge-sheet is not filed so far.

(4.) For the aforesaid reasons, the F. I. R. in Crime No. I-121/1996 of Jawahar Nagar Police Station, Aurangabad is hereby quashed. Rule made absolute accordingly. Application allowed.