SHILPA Vs. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. In this matter, respondent No. 3, accused in R.C.C. No. 408/2013, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur has been permitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate by order below Exh. 37 to travel abroad. The matter is under Section 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code and other Sections mentioned in the charge sheet. The petitioner -wife is the original complainant. She has challenged the order concerned by filing the present petition.

(2.) THE petitioner is raising various grounds pointing out as to how the marriage which took place on 11.5.2013 could not succeed and by 27.5.2013 the F.I.R. was required to be filed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, disputes arose inter alia due to the petitioner coming to know about respondent No. 3 having an affair with some lady in U.S.A. The counsel submits that, because of that, the respondent No. 3 wants to go to U.S.A. and if he gets married there, he may not return back to India. The argument is that the charge was framed on 19.10.2013 and even evidence of the petitioner started in the matter and she has also been partly examined. The counsel tendered copy of roznama which is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. The copy of roznama shows that charge was framed on 19.10.2013. In the trial Court, the evidence of complainant was recorded on 13.1.2014 and cross -examination took place and for further cross -examination matter was deferred on that day. According to learned counsel, since then the respondent No. 3 has delayed the proceedings and pressed for this application to permit him to go to U.S.A. It is argued that, respondent No. 3 is working in Infosys at Pune and has claimed that on deputation from the same Company he wants to go to U.S.A. The apprehension of the counsel for petitioner is that, as per the law, although the Passport of respondent No. 3 would expire on 14.12.2014, he has Visa up to 27.8.2015 and he would be able to get the passport period extended even without coming back to India. The argument is that, due to impugned order trial is stalled when it is already Part Heard.

(3.) LEARNED A.P.P. for the State has supported the petition, submitting that, in this matter already charge was framed and evidence is partly recorded and that the prosecution can conduct the matter on day -to -day basis when there are hardly six witnesses and that within a month the concerned criminal case can be decided. According to learned A.P.P., it is not a case that the respondent No. 3 will lose his job if he does not go to U.S.A. as he is already working in Infosys and there is no such urgency as has been made out. Learned A.P.P. submits that, even the security of Rs. 30,000/ - taken by the trial Court is very insignificant looking to the cost of living at present and the income.