BHAWARLAL GANESHRAMJI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Respondents waive service. By consent rule is taken up for hearing forthwith. The petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No.1283 of 2006 (original accused Nos.11, 12 and 4 respectively) have challenged the order dated 16th January 2006 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in discharge application being Exhibit Nos.306, 351 and 352. The petitioner (original accused No 2) in Criminal Writ Petition No.1284 of 2006 has challenged the order dated 7th October 2003 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in discharge application being Exhibit No.181 in Sessions Case No.10 of 2002. The petitioners, hereafter are referred to as the accused in their respective numbers for the brevity's sake. The accused have prayed for discharging them from all the charges framed against them. Since both the petitions arise out of the same sessions case No.10 of 2002, they have been heard together and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) IT may be stated that accused Nos.11 and 12 have earlier filed an application under section 227 of the CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 vide Exhibit 181 for discharge, which was rejected on 7th October, 2003. The accused challenged the said order by filing petitions being Criminal Writ Petition Nos.1387 of 2004 and 194 of 2005 before this court. This court on 27th September, 2005 and 9th August, 2005 respectively decided the same and set aside the order passed by the trial court and directed the trial court to decide the applications in accordance with law afresh as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of the order. Accordingly the accused No.11 filed application being Exhibit No.351 and accused No.12 filed application being Exhibit No.352 under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) THAT the complainant Devendra Singh Parihar was residing with his wife and son deceased Kunal at Panchgani. In or about March 1999, deceased Kunal had organized an entertainment show, which was sponsored by accused No.1. J.M. Joshi. During this period deceased Kunal was introduced Hema, daughter of accused No.1-J.M. Joshi and the said acquaintance was culminated into a love relationship. Subsequently, both of them were found missing from their respective houses. On 29th May, 2000, the accused No.2 Mrs. Vidya J. Joshi called the complainant and made inquiry whether her daughter Hema and deceased Kunal were in the house or not. On the next day, one Amarnath Jain and Umesh, co-accused Nos. 5 and 7 visited the school of the complainant and made threatening enquiries about Hema. It was the revealed that deceased Kunal had eloped with Hema. Thereafter, from time to time the family members of the accused No.4, Hema Joshi with Vidya Joshi were searching for Hema and Kunal. The complainant then reported the said matter to the Addl. Commissioner of Police, Pune. The father of the accused No.4 Hema Joshi also complained that deceased Kunal, with the help of the complainant, has kidnapped his daughter Hema.