ASHOK SHANKARRAO FOKMARE Vs. SAU SUJATA NITINRAO TIDKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. By consent, heard forthwith.

(2.) THE applicants have impugned the order dated 22-3-1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, in Criminal Revision No. 177 of 1998. The challenge is limited to the operative part of the order which records that after recording the evidence of the complainant and her witnesses, the lower Court is directed to give hearing to the parties on Exh. 20 again and further direction to keep the application Exh. 20 pending till the completion of recording of the evidence of the complainant and her witnesses.

(3.) ON the report of Sau Sujata Nitinrao Tidke, the Police Station, Civil Lines, Akola, registered Crime No. 605 of 1996 against seven persons which included the applicants, for having committed an offence under section 498-A r/w 34 of I. P. C. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 4, Akola, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 323 of 1997. It so happened that the applicants were not prosecuted as their names did not appear in the column of accused in the chargesheet filed by the police and, therefore, the prosecutor filed an application before the learned Magistrate for addition of applicants as accused and the same came to be marked as Exh. 20. After hearing the learned A. P. P. , the learned Magistrate rejected the application on 27-2-1998, observing that no prima facie case is made out against the said persons viz. Dr. Fokmare, Sau. Ujwala Hingankar, Vinod Hingankar and Sau Vaishali Fokmare, i. e. the applicants as far as offence under section 498-A I. P. C. is concerned. Hence the application was rejected. This order of the learned Magistrate came to be challenged before the Court of session at Akola, by the complainant Sau Sujata Nitinrao Tidke in Criminal Revision No. 177 of 1998. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, after examining the provisions of section 319 of Criminal Procedure Code, came to the finding that prima facie from the complaint, the case against the applicant is made out. But, the P. S. O. Civil Lines, Akola, did not implead the applicants as accused in the chargesheet and, therefore, request of the Prosecutor to add their names as accused was genuine and the finding of the trial Court that prima facie there is no evidence, was not proper. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, therefore, stated that in her view, prima facie, there is involvement of the persons whose names are mentioned in the complaint. However, stage to add the accused is yet to reach and, therefore, quashed and set aside the order below Exh. 20 passed by the learned Magistrate, and directed the lower Court to rehear Exh. 20 by keeping it pending till the stage of recording of the evidence of the complainant and her witnesses is over.