DR. ARCHANA TRIPATHI Vs. DR. APOORVA TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed under Section 397 read with 401 of CrPC against an order dated 15.7.2014 passed by Tenth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No.202/14, whereby the order dated 12.3.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal in R.T. No.2061/2014 has been set aside.

(2.) The facts necessary for the disposal of this revision, in short, are that the applicant had filed a criminal complaint against the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 379, 392, 403, 406, 420, 426 and 506 of IPC on the ground that the applicant and the respondent were married to each other. The applicant- complainant was running a Kolar Maternity Care Hospital along with the respondent-accused. They have two children out of the wedlock and the respondent used to beat her in front of the children and in a clandestine manner, he obtained a decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act while the parties were residing together. The respondent had persuaded the applicant that the proceedings under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act have not been finalized and therefore, they continued to reside as husband-wife whereas the order granting decree of divorce was already passed and the respondent was having a copy thereof. In the month of January, 2011, the respondent had called a Vitech micro-culture machine from applicant's sister who is residing in USA. Her sister Dr. Alka Shukla sent the machine after purchasing it from her own money as she was not aware of the divorce between the applicant and respondent. In the month of September, 2012, after serious dispute took place between the parties, she was informed by the respondent that the decree of divorce has already been passed in the month of November, 2010 and, therefore, now she would not allow her to live with him. Therefore, the applicant went to her maternal home at Nasik. Later on, when the applicant demanded the machine back from the respondent which was sent by her sister, then the same was not returned. It was mentioned in the complaint that during the absence of the applicant, the respondent had stolen the machine which was installed in the hospital being run by the applicant. The applicant had made a complaint to the police authority and since no action has been taken, therefore, she filed a complaint.

(3.) The applicant examined herself under Section 200 of CrPC in which she had stated that in the month of January, 2011, the respondent had called a Vitech micro-culture machine from USA through her sister. It was further stated that the payment of price of the machine was made by her sister because she was not aware of the decree of divorce between the parties. In the month of September, 2012, after serious disputes cropped up between the parties, he had disclosed that a decree of divorce has already been passed in the month of November, 2010 and thereafter, the applicant went to her maternal home at Nasik and after coming back therefrom, when she demanded her machine back, the respondent refused to return the same on the ground that in the decree of divorce, it is specifically mentioned that nothing is outstanding against any of the parties. The applicant also examined one Prahlad Singh under Section 202 of CrPC who has stated that he is working as a servant in the house of the applicant and hospital which, in the name and styled as "Kolar Maternity Care", is being run by the applicant. He was informed by the applicant that her sister had sent the culture machine and that machine was installed in the hospital. In the month of January- February, 2013, when he went to Mata Mandir in connection with some work, then at that time, the culture machine was in the Kolar Maternity Care Hospital and when he came back, the said machine was not found therein.