MADHUSADAN SHANKAR RAJWADE Vs. NEELA PURUSHOOTAM RAJAWADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY these two petitions the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 4, Pune passed on 2.2.1998 in Criminal Case No. 925 of 1983 and in Criminal Case No. 212 of 1983, confirmed by the Additional Session Judge, Pune by his orders dated 29.4.1992 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 237 of 1988 and Criminal Revision Application No. 236 of 1988 respectively, have been challenged.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to the present petitions are as follows: - The parties are inter related. Originally one brother of the petitioner by name Rajaram Shankar Rajawade had filed two separate complaints against his brother, who is petitioner in both these petitions. One complaint is filed for offence under Sections 323 and 504 of the I.P.C. and another for the offence under Section 500 of the I.P.C. The said complaints were filed on 12th August, 1983 and 25th February, 1983 in the Trial Court i.e. J.M.F.C., Court No. 4, Pune. After filing the complaints, the cognizance was taken by the learned J.M.F.C. but before the evidence of the complainant was recorded, the complainant died on 12.2.1986. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1, who is the wife of the brother of the complainant and the petitioner made applications on 12.9.1986 and 13.9.1986 in these two cases for bringing her on the record in place of the complainant. The Trial Court exercising its discretion under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. allowed the said applications in both the cases. The said orders were challenged in the revision before the Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune by his orders passed on 29.4.1992 in both the cases separately, confirmed the orders of the Trial Court and dismissed the revision applications. These petitions separately challenge the said orders.

(3.) WITH the assistance of Shri Karlekar, I have gone through the orders of the Trial Court as well as the Sessions Court. I was also taken through the applications made by the respondent No. I and complaints filed by the original complainant. On going through the aforesaid pleadings and the orders of the Courts below, I find no irregularity is committed by the courts below. Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. gives discretion to the Trial Court in summons cases to acquit the accused for non -appearance of the complainant due to his death or even to proceed with the case. In this case, after the death of the original complainant, the respondent No. 1, who is wife of the brother of the complainant, applied to bring her on the record in place of the complainant in order to prosecute the said complaints. The Courts below have found that there were family disputes with regard to the property and the allegations against the petitioner accused were of assault and abuses and insulting words used against the complainant, his servants and the family members. The complaint was not left unattended after the death of the complainant but the respondent No. 1 came forward to prosecute the same. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed in para 6 of the Judgment that the allegations against the accused by the complainant were that the accused beat and abused him and his maid servants. The wording used by the accused is insulting per se. According to the respondent No. 1 herein, the entire family was abused, insulted together with the maid servants by the accused during the incident in question and defamed by the statements made by the accused in the letter sent to the Chief Minister. In the aforesaid facts, the Lower Court, in my opinion, rightly exercised its discretion given under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. Neither after the issue of summons in the Trial Court nor in these petitions the petitioner has challenged the maintainability of the complaint or the complaint, on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint do not make out prima facie case to proceed.