Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
IN
902_wp_1252_2015
CRIMINALWRITPETITIONNO.1252OF2015
C
ou
1.BharatDevdanSalvi
Age27years,Occ:Business,
res.atSaritaSangamApartment,
Kasarwadi,Pune.
rt
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY
CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION
ig
h
2.Smt.TeressaDevdanSalvi,
Age48years,Occ:Household,
R/at.SaritaSangamApartment,
Kasarwadi,Pune
3.MaryAjayKumawat
Age29years,Occ:Doctor,
res.atMan,Hinjewadi,
Pune
om
ba
y
4.ShriAjayGovindKumawat
Age34years,Occ:Doctor,
res.atMan,Hindewadi,
Pune.
5.ShriAnnasahebShankarJadhav
Age47years,Occ:Agriculturist,
Res.atNewasa,Ahmednagar
6.ShriMadhukarMotiramSalvi,
Age52years,
Res.atNewasa,Ahmednagar
7.Sou.ParidhanMadhukarSalvi,
Age52years,Occ:Household,
Res.atNewasa,Ahmednagar
..Petitioners
(Org.Accused)
v/s.
PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016
1/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:30 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
1.TheStateofMaharashtra
throughSeniorPoliceInspector,
BhosariPoliceStation,
Bhosari,Pune.
C
ou
2.MissLuisaPetarasJadhav,
Ageadult,Occ:Household,
res.ofNyayNagar,GalliNo.8,
GharNo.444,GarkhedaParisar,
Aurangabad
rt
902_wp_1252_2015
..Respondents
ig
h
Ms.KshitijaG.SarangiforthePetitioner.
Mr.S.S.Shinde, PP a/w. Mrs. S.V.Sonawane, APP for the
Respondent/State.
Mr.SatyavratJoshifortheRespondentNo.2.
ba
y
CORAM:RANJITMORE&
SMT.ANUJAPRABHUDESSAI,JJ.
DateofReservingtheorder:17thJuly,2015
DateofPronouncement:20thJanuary,2016
om
JUDGMENT(PerAnujaPrabhudessai,J.):
Rule. Rulemadereturnableforthwithwiththeconsentof
theparties.
2.
Thisisapetitionfiledunderarticle226oftheconstitution
r/wsection482oftheCodeofCriminalProcedureforquashingthe
C.R.No.46of2015registeredwithBhosariPoliceStation,Pune,forthe
offencespunishableundersections376and417r/w.34oftheIPC.
PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016
2/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:30 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015
3.
rt
under:
C
ou
TheRespondentNo.2whowastomarrythePetitionerNo.1
hadlodgedtheFIRdated15.2.2015allegingthaton9.12.2014,the
PetitionerNo.1hadsexualintercoursewithheragainstherwilland
without her consent. The Respondent No.2 further alleged that
ig
h
subsequentlythePetitionerNo.1andhisfamilymemberscalledoffthe
marriageandtherebycheatedher.
4.
Ms.KshitijaSarangi,thelearnedcounselforthePetitionershas
ba
y
submittedthattheFIRdoesnotdiscloseoffenceundersection375or
415IPC.Shehassubmittedthatthemarriagewascalledoffinviewof
the lack of compatibility between the Petitioner No.1 and the
om
RespondentNo.2.ShehasfurthersubmittedthatthePetitionerNos.2
to7beingthefamilymembersofthePetitionerNo.1werepresentat
the time of finalising the marriage and they are not involved in
commissionofanyoffenceasalleged. The learned counsel for the
PetitionershassubmittedthattheallegationsintheFIRdonotdisclose
any offence and continuation of the proceedings will be abuse of
processoflaw.
PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016
3/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015
5.
Mr.Shinde,thelearnedAPPhassubmittedthatthematerial
rt
onrecordprimafacieshowstheinvolvementofthePetitionerNo.1.
C
ou
He fairly concedes that the material on record does not show the
involvementofthePetitionerNos.2to7incommissionoftheoffence
undersection376or417oftheIPC.
Mr.SatyavratJoshi,thelearnedcounselfortheRespondentNo.2
ig
h
6.
hassubmittedthatthePetitionerNo.1hadsexualintercoursewiththe
RespondentNo.2underafalsepromiseofmarriage. Hehasfurther
submittedthatbycallingoffthemarriage,thePetitionerNo.1andhis
ba
y
familymembershavecheatedtheRespondentNo.2.
7.
om
RespondentNo.1State.
8.
4/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015
rt
thescopeandambitofsection482oftheCr.P.C.hasheldthat
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
om
9.
5/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015
rt
C
ou
justice, then the Court can exercise the power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. While exercising the power under the provision, the
ig
h
Thepresentcaseneedstobeexaminedinthebackdropofthe
ba
y
10.
om
the Petitioner Nos.3 and 4, the sister and brotherinlaw and the
Petitioner Nos.5, 6 and 7, the maternal uncles and aunt of the
PetitionerNo.1.
11.
6/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015
rt
persuadedhertowaittillthePetitionerNo.1returnedhomefromthe
C
ou
workplace. ThePetitionerNo.1camehomeatabout9.00p.m.and
sinceitwaslate,thePetitionerNo.2advisedtheRespondentNo.2to
stayover. TheRespondentNo.2hasallegedthatonthesamenight
whenshewasgoingtotheroomofhermotherinlawtosleep,the
ig
h
PetitionerNo.1tookhertohisroomandhadsexualintercoursewith
heragainstherwishanddespiteherresistancebyassuringherthat
theywouldbemarryingsoon.ShehasstatedthatthePetitionerNo.1
threatened to call off the marriage if she disclosed the incident to
ba
y
anyone.
12.
om
Petitionersavoidedfinalisingtheweddingdate,shewenttohiswork
placeon24.01.2015andquestionedhimaboutthesame.Therewas
analtercationbetweenherandthePetitionerNo.1overthesaidissue.
On 10.02.2015, the uncle of the Petitioner No.1 called her and her
parentstoChisbanvillagetofixtheweddingdate.However,instead
offixingtheweddingdate,theycalledoffthemarriageinviewofthe
incidentof24.1.2015.TheRespondentNo.2claimedthatpetitioners
havecheatedherandherfamilybycallingoffthemarriagewithout
PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016
7/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015
anyreason.Basedontheseallegationstheaforestatedcrimehasbeen
rt
13.
C
ou
sections376and417oftheIPC.
definedundersection375oftheIndianPenalCode,theactmustbe
ig
h
coveredbyany ofthesixclausesofsection375oftheIndianPenal
Code.Inordertoconstituterapeunderthefirstandsecondclauseof
ba
y
woman. In State Of U.P vs Chhotey Lal (2011) 2 SCC 550 the Apex
Courthasheldthat:
om
PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016
8/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015
InStateofH.P
.v. InStateofH.P
.v.MangoRam3,a3
rt
JudgeBenchofthisCourtwhiledealingwiththeaspectof
230oftheReportasunder:
C
ou
`consent'forthepurposesofSection375IPCheldatpage
"Submissionofthebodyunderthefearofterrorcannotbe
construedasaconsentedsexualact.Consentforthepurpose
ig
h
ba
y
Whethertherewasconsentornot,istobeascertainedonly
onacarefulstudyofallrelevantcircumstances."and,the
om
expression`withoutherconsent'wouldcomprehendanact
14.
ofreasonaccompaniedbydeliberation.
TheavermentsintheFIRneedtobeexaminedinthebackdropof
PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016
9/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015
petitionerno.1toldherthattheywouldsoonbegettingmarried.She
rt
hasallegedthatdespiteherresistance,thepetitionerno.1hadforcible
C
ou
sexualintercoursewithheragainstherwill.Shehasstatedthatwhen
shecried,thepetitionerno.1threatenedtocalloffthemarriageifshe
disclosedtheincidenttoanyone.
ig
h
15.
respondentno.2hadnotconsentedtoandwasnotwillingtoenterinto
aphysicalrelationship,despitewhichthepetitionerno.1hadforcible
sexualintercoursewiththeRespondentno.2againstherwishes.The
ba
y
medicalevidenceisalsoprimafaciesuggestiveofsexualintercourse.
Theallegationsprimefacieconstitutes'rape'underClause1and2of
sec.375. The question whether it was a case of passive submission
om
underpsychologicalpressureorwhetheritwasaresultoftacitconsent
arethequestionswhichwillhavetobefinallydecidedonanalysisof
PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016
10/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015
rt
16.
C
ou
familymembersofthePetitionerNo.1.Therearenoallegationsinthe
FIR that these Petitioners hadeither aidedor abetted the Petitioner
No.1incommissionofoffenceundersection376oftheIPC.Theonly
allegation against these Petitioners is that they had called off the
ig
h
marriagebetweenthePetitionerNo.1andtheRespondentNo.2and
hadtherebycheatedtheRespondentNo.2. Itisinthelightofthese
allegationstheoffenceundersection417r/w.34oftheIPChasbeen
ba
y
registeredagainstthePetitionerNo.1andhisfamilymembers.
17.
Cheatingisdefinedunder Section415oftheIPCwhichreads
om
asunder:
18.
(2000)page693hasheldasunder:
PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016
11/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015
om
ba
y
ig
h
C
ou
rt
Asmentionedabove,Section415hastwoparts.While
in the first part, the person must "dishonestly" or
"fraudulently" induce the complainant to deliver any
property; in the second part, the person should
intentionallyinducethecomplainanttodooromittodo
a thing. That is to say, in the first part, inducement
mustbedishonestorfraudulent.Inthesecondpart,the
inducement shouldbeintentional.Asobservedbythis
Court in Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney vs. State of
Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 575 = 1956 Crl.L.J. 1611 =
1956 SCR 483, a guilty intention is an essential
ingredientoftheoffenceofcheating.Inorder,therefore,
to secure conviction of a person for the offence of
cheating,"mensrea"onthepartofthatperson,mustbe
established.ItwasalsoobservedinMahadeoPrasadvs.
StateofWestBengal,AIR1954SC724=1954Cr.L.J.
1806,thatinordertoconstitutetheoffenceofcheating,
the intention to deceive should be in existence at the
timewhentheinducementwasoffered.Thus,sofaras
secondpartof Section415 isconcerned,"property",at
nostage,isinvolved.Hereitisthedoingofanactor
omissiontodoanactbythecomplainant,asaresultof
intentional inducement by the accused, which is
material.Suchinducementshouldresultinthedoingof
anactoromissiontodoanactasaresultofwhichthe
personconcernedshouldhavesufferedorwaslikelyto
suffer damage or harm in body, mind, reputation or
property
19.
Intheinstantcase,theallegationsinthecomplaintarethatthe
PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016
12/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015
C
ou
rt
Petitionershadcalledoffthemarriage.
20. In HridayaRanjanPrasadVermavs.StateofBihar(2000)4
SCC168theApexCourthasheldthat:
indeterminingthequestionithastobekeptinmindthatthe
ig
h
distinctionbetweenmerebreachofcontractandtheoffenceof
cheatingisafineone.Itdependsupontheintentionofthe
accusedatthetimetoinducementwhichmaybejudgedbyhis
subsequentconductbutforthissubsequentconductisnotthe
ba
y
soletest.Merebreachofcontractcannotgiverisetocriminal
prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest
om
intentionisshownrightatthebeginningofthetransaction,
that is the time when the offence is said to have been
committed.Thereforeitistheintentionwhichisthegistofthe
offence.Toholdapersonguiltyofcheatingitisnecessaryto
show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the
timeofmakingthepromise.
21.
In the instant case, the FIR reveals that the marriage of the
PetitionerNo.1andtheRespondentNo.2wasfinalisedbytheirparents
PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016
13/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015
andotherfamilymembersandtheirengagementceremonywasheld
rt
on12.9.2014.TheFIRdoesnotindicatethatthePetitionerNo.1from
C
ou
the very inception did not have intention to marry the respondent
no.2.TheFIRdoesnotindicatethatthePetitionerNo.1hadobtained
theconsentoftheRespondentNo.2andhadinducedherintoentering
into a physical relationship by making a false promise of marriage
ig
h
withouthavingintentionorinclinationtomarryher.Thefactthatthe
PetitionerNo.1subsequentlyrefusedtomarryherwouldnotleadtoan
inference that from the very inception the Petitioner No.1 did not
ba
y
intendtomarryingher.
22.
TherecordsrevealthatthemarriageofthePetitionerNo.1and
the Respondent no.2 was called off after the incident of 24.1.2015
om
whentheRespondentNo.2hadvisitedtheworkplaceofthePetitioner
No.1andquarreledwithhimovernonfinalizingofthedateofthe
PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016
14/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015
C
ou
23.
rt
therespondentno.2.
ingredientofsection415oftheIPCandconsequentlydonotconstitute
offencepunishableundersection417oftheIPC.Thisbeingthecase,
thepetitionerscannotbeprosecutedfortheoffencepunishableunder
Atthisstage,wewouldliketostatethatuponregistrationofC.R.
24.
ig
h
section417r/w.34oftheIPC.
No.46of2015thePetitionerNos.3and4beingthesisterandbrother
ba
y
inlawofthePetitionerNo.1hadfiledanapplicationforanticipatory
bail.Thesaidapplicationwasdismissedonthegroundthatnooffence
wasregisteredagainstthem. Sufficeistosaythattheregistrationof
om
ofarrestinanonbailableoffence.
25.
anticipatorybail,thesetwopetitionerswerearrestedon7.6.2015.They
had filed an application for regular bail on 9.6.2015 being Bail
Application No.1917 of 2015 before the learned Additional Sessions
PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016
15/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015
Judge,Pune.Byorderdated17thJune,2015,thisCourthaddirected
rt
thelearnedSessionsJudgetodisposeofthesaidapplicationasearlyas
C
ou
possibleandpossiblyon19.6.2015itself.Saidorderwasnotcomplied
with. ConsideringthefactthattheFIRdidnotdiscloseanyoffence
againstthesetwoPetitioners,whoareDoctorbyprofession,thisCourt
26.
ig
h
byorderdated24thJune,2015orderedtoreleasethemonbail.
under section 376 and 417 IPC, the FIR does not spell out any
allegationsofrapeagainstthepetitionerNos.3and4.TheInvestigating
ba
y
Officerhasstatedinheraffidavitthaton4.04.2015shehadreceivedan
applicationfromtheRespondentno.2allegingthatthepetitionersno.3
and4hadthreatenedherandthatsheapprehendsthreattoherlife.It
om
implicatedinthecrimeonlyontheallegationthattheyhadinfluenced
the petitioner no.1 in calling off the marriage and had thereby
committedanoffenceofcheatingpunishableundersection417ofthe
IPC. Based on these allegations, these petitioners were arrested on
8.06.2015.
PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016
16/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015
27.
rt
bailableandispunishablewithimprisonmentforoneyear,orfineor
C
ou
both,despitewhichthesetwopetitionerswerearrestedandremanded
tocustodyfromtimetotime. Needlesstostatethatthepowerof
arrestaswellasthepowertoremandcannotbeexercisedinacasual
28.
ig
h
manner.
In JoginderKumarv.StateofU.P.&Ors.(1994)4SCC260,
theApexCourthasemphasizedthat:
Noarrestcanbemadebecauseitislawfulforthepoliceofficer
ba
y
todoso.Theexistenceofthepowerstoarrestisonething.The
justificationfortheexerciseofitisquiteanother. Thepolice
officermustbeabletojustifythearrestapartfromhispowerto
om
PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016
17/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015
rt
beliefbothastotheperson'scomplicityandevensoastothe
C
ou
29.
InthecaseofArneshKumarv.StateofBihar&Anr.(2014)8
Cr.P.C.hasheldasunder:
ig
h
SCC273,theApexCourtafterconsideringthescopeofSection41of
7.1. Fromaplainreadingoftheaforesaidprovision,it
ba
y
sevenyearsorwhichmayextendtosevenyearswithor
withoutfine,cannotbearrestedbythepoliceofficeronly
onitssatisfactionthatsuchpersonhadcommittedthe
om
PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016
18/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015
unlesssuchaccusedpersonisarrested,hispresenceinthe
rt
courtwheneverrequiredcannotbeensured.Thesearethe
conclusions,whichonemayreachbasedonfacts.Law
C
ou
mandatesthepoliceofficertostatethefactsandrecord
ig
h
thearrest.Inpithandcore,thepoliceofficebeforearrest
mustputaquestiontohimself,whyarrest?Isitreally
required?Whatpurposeitwillserve?Whatobjectitwill
achieve?Itisonlyafterthesequestionsareaddressedand
one or the other conditions as enumerated above is
satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. In
ba
y
om
30.
UponconsideringthescopeofSection41AofCr.P.C.andwhile
emphasizingtheneedtoensurethatthepoliceofficersdonotarrest
theaccused unnecessarilyandMagistratedonotauthorizedetention
casually and mechanically the Apex Court has given following
PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016
19/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015
directions:
rt
C
ou
policeofficersnottoautomaticallyarrestwhenthecase
underSection498AofIPCisregistered,buttosatisfy
themselves about the necessity for arrest under the
parameterslaiddownaboveflowingfromSection41
Cr.P.C.
ig
h
11.2. Allpoliceofficersbeprovidedwithachecklist
containingspecifiedsubclausesunderSection41(1)(b)
(ii);
11.3.Thepoliceofficershallforwardthechecklistduly
filed and furnish the reasons and materials which
ba
y
om
PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016
20/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015
Cr.PCbeservedontheaccusedwithintwoweeksfromthe
rt
dateofinstitutionofthecase,whichmaybeextendedby
toberecordedinwriting;
C
ou
theSuperintendentofPoliceoftheDistrictforthereasons
ig
h
HighCourthavingterritorialjurisdiction.
11.8. Authorisingdetentionwithoutrecordingreasons
asaforesaidbythejudicialMagistrateconcernedshallbe
liable for departmentalactionby theappropriateHigh
Court.
Wehastentoaddthatthedirectionsaforesaidshall
ba
y
12.
notonlyapplytothecasesunderSection498AoftheI.P.C.
orSection 4of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in
withimprisonment foratermwhichmay belessthan
sevenyearsorwhichmayextendtosevenyears;whether
withorwithoutfine.
om
31.
Revertingtothepresentcase,thoughtheInvestigatingofficerhas
21/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015
rt
C
ou
ig
h
verifywhetherthesepetitionerswereinvolvedincheatinganyother
person and for arresting the coaccused Annasaheb Jadhav. The
ba
y
thenatureoftheallegationsagainstthesepetitioners.
32.
Thepetitionersno.3and4hadfiledthebailapplicationbefore
om
thesessionscourton9.6.2015.ThelearnedSessionsJudgehadcalled
for the say of the prosecution on 19.6.2015. By order dated
PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016
22/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015
application,thelearnedJudgewasreluctanttoheartheapplication
rt
andhadadjournedthehearingto22.06.2015. Itwasfurtherstated
C
ou
thatthecounselforthepetitionershadappearedbeforethecourton
22.06.2015andthatshewasinformedthatthebailapplicationwould
be heard in the afternoon session. However, by 12 p.m. she was
informedthatthelearnedJudgehadproceededonleaveonmedical
ig
h
groundsandthehearingofthebailapplicationwasfurtheradjourned.
Inviewoftheabovestatement,thiscourtbyorderdated24.6.2015
ba
y
SessionsJudge,Punewasdirectedtosubmitthereporttothiscourt.
33.
Wehaveperusedthereportandtheexplanationtenderedbythe
learnedJudge,andthesameinourviewisnotsatisfactory.Thebail
om
PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016
23/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015
failureofthelearnedJudgetodisposeoftheapplicationexpeditiously
rt
hasalsoresultedinillegaldetentionofthepetitionersincustodyfrom
34.
C
ou
7thJune,2015to24thJune,2015.
beingbailable,theInvestigatingagency,theJudicialMagistrateaswell
ig
h
ba
y
nos.3and4.
35.
Hencewedeemitfittodirectanenquiryagiansttheerrantpolice
om
officers,aswellastheconcernedjudicialofficers,inaccordancewith
thedirectionsoftheApexCourtinArneshKumar(para11.7and11.8.
supra). Thepetitionernos.3and4areatlibertytofileappropriate
proceedingsforcompensation,iftheysodesire.
36.
Underthecircumstancesandinviewofdiscussionsupra,wepass
thefollowingorder:
(i)Thepetitionispartlyallowed,withcostsofRs.50,000/
PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016
24/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015
tobepaidtothepetitionernos.3and4.
rt
C
ou
Station,Pune,isquashedquathePetitionerNos.2to7and
quashed qua the petitioner no.1 only in respect of the
offenceundersection417r/w34oftheIPC.
(iii)Theregistryisdirectedtoforwardcopyofthisorderto
ig
h
andtofixtheresponsibilityandtotakedisciplinaryaction
againsttheerringpoliceofficers.
ba
y
om
(ANUJAPRABHUDESSAI,J.)
PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016
(RANJITMORE,J.)
25/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::