(Sau. Radha v. Sanjay
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 2(wa), 378
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. the respondent No.1 Sanjay Panbisare, being aggrieved by acquittal of the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 494, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, recorded by learned 8th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad in R.C.C. No.127/2010…
Judgment
Shri R.K. Jadhavar, Advocate for petitioner-absent Shri D.S. Manorkar, Advocate for respondents 1 to 6 Shri S.N. Kendre, A.P.P. for respondent No.8/State ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 6th January, 2012. Heard. Perused. None present for the petitioner. It appears that the complainant Radha Panbisare, wife of
the respondent No.1 Sanjay Panbisare, being aggrieved by acquittal of the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 494, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, recorded by learned 8th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad in R.C.C. No.127/2010, preferred an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to begin with and thereafter, for the reasons best known to her, presented it as a Criminal Revision Application and thus, it came to be numbered accordingly. Smt. Radha Panbisare, the complainant is the victim of the offence within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and was expected to prefer appeal before the Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction i.e. Sessions Judge, Aurangabad as per the proviso to Section 372 of the Code. Evidently, this Criminal Revision Application is not maintainable. Hence rejected. fmp/crra104.11
( U.D. SALVI, J. )
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 2(wa), 378.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 06 Jan 2012. The bench was U D SALVI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.