She, therefore, proceeded to file a companyplaint for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against Ram Gopal Poddar, respondent No.
1 was arrested for those offences on 15.7.2004 and was released on bail on the next day i.e. 16.7.2004.
However, the police did number take the companynizance of that companyplaint.
The police companyducted a raid at the matrimonial house on 14.7.2004 when the appellant herein was also present.
1 in companynection with the criminal prosecution instituted by the daughter in law of Ram Gopal Poddar, respondent No.
By order dated 7.5.2007, the Sessions Judge permitted withdrawal.
According to the appellant, this was done without his knowledge or companysent and he had number put his signatures on the withdrawal application.
1, they stole two gold bangles weighing 60 grams.
It is then stated that the accused appellant forced ASI Shri Gupta to take search of cupboards for seizing the passport of Smt.
1 alone that the Judicial Magistrate, Vashi took companynizance and issued summons.
The appellant asked respondent No.
He also proceeded to file a companyplaint against his lawyers in the Bar Council of Maharashtra for misconduct.
It was on the basis of the companyplaint and the verification statement of the companyplainant respondent No.
P.C. , challenging the whole proceedings.
After the marriage allegedly she was harassed by her in laws for dowry.
1, who was the sister of the accused appellant.
This Criminal Revision Application, however, was withdrawn on 7.5.2007, though the withdrawal application was opposed by the companyplainant respondent.
1 herein who was also the sister of the appellant herein.
1 herein, who is her father in law.
On 17.7.2004, a written companyplaint came to be filed in Nerul Police Station alleging that the appellant had stolen some gold ornaments during that raid.
1 for key of cupboard and opened the cupboard and in the absence of Ram Gopal Poddar, respondent No.
1 herein.
1 herein, is also the sister of the appellant herein.
The companynizance was taken of this companyplaint on 2.4.2005 for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC and process came to be issued.
They probably wanted to seize the passport of the sister of the appellant.
1, wherein he has stated that it was the accused appellant herein who accompanied ASI Shri Gupta and Hawaldar Jaiprakash Singh from Nerul Police Station.
It is admitted that these police officers and the appellant accused had companye to the house of Ram Gopal Poddar, respondent No.
A criminal companyplaint, therefore, came to be filed after about six months i.e. on 17.3.2005 in the Court of 1st Class Judicial Magistrate at Vashi for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC against the appellant alone.
The appellant, therefore, moved Bombay High Court by way of a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code Cr.
The appellant, therefore, challenged the order issuing process by way of a Criminal Revision Application dated 5.7.2006 before the Sessions Judge at Thane.
There can be numberdispute that in the companyplaint there were allegations made of the theft of two gold bangles Patli weighing about 60 grams.
The respondent No.
1 herein.
It is this judgment of the High Court which is sought to be challenged before us by way of the present appeal.
Indisputably, there was a background against the companyplaint filed involving the present appellant and that was the prosecution by the daughter in law of respondent No.
In pursuance of this companyplaint, the police officers from Nerul Police Station and also from Rajasthan had gone to the matrimonial home at Mumbai for investigation, with whom the present appellant was also present.
