SACHIN RAMU GAWLI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable and heard with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) Brief facts leading for filing the present application are as under:-

(3.) It submitted that, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai has partly allowed the application preferred by the applicants by discharging the Applicant No. 2 to 4 from the ambit of Section 306, 323, 427 read with 34 of IPC and Section 32 B and 33 of Bombay Money Lenders Act, whereas, the Applicant No. 1 is discharged from the ambit of Section 427 read with 34 of IPC and 32 B of Bombay Money Lenders Act, whereas Applicant No. 5 is discharged from the ambit of Sections 306, 427 read with 34 of IPC and Section 32 B and 33 of Money Lenders Act. It is further submitted that, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has only unashamed the Applicant No. 1 under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC whereas, freed the other Applicants from the offence of 306 of IPC only because Applicant No. 1 had lent a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs to the deceased persons. The prosecution has failed to establish that, there was continuous harassment at the hands of Applicant No. 1, which constrained the deceased person to take such a stern step. The prosecution relied on the incident dated 28.09.2014, when Applicant No. 1 and 5 encountered the deceased person and asked for repayment of the money accompanied with physical abuse. Also, the Applicant No. 2 to 4 are alleged to have visited the house premises of deceased on 28.09.2014, and happened to threaten the deceased person. The aforesaid allegations does not constitute an offence of Section 306 of IPC, and also the said allegations are an afterthought by the wife of the deceased to seek revenge and free herself from the liability of paying back the loan amount.