Bombay High Court
Gopinath Shankar Dehade And Ors vs Balasaheb Shankar Gangurde And ... on 23 September, 2016
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
1 CRI WP 525.2007.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 525 OF 2007
1. Gopinath Shankar Dehade,
Age: 48 years, Occ: Service
2. Snehlata Gopinath Dehade,
Age: 42 years, Occu: Housewife
3. Sheetal Gopinath Dehade,
Age: 21 years, Occ: Education,
Respondent No. 1 to 3 R/o. N-42,
CC-1/5/5, Trimurti Chowk, CIDCO,
Taluka Nashik, Dist. Nashik
4. Nirmala Milind Jadhav,
Age: 36 years, Occ: Housewife
5. Milind Jadhav,
Age: 42 years, Occ: Service,
Respondent No. 4 & 5 R/o.
Samta Nagar, Takli Road,
Nashik
6. Sunil Dinkar Jadhav,
Age: 36 years, Occ: Service,
7. Kaveri Sunil Jadhav,
Age: 25 years, Occ: Housewife,
Respo. No. 6 & 7 R/o. Matrukrupa
Building, Pragati Colony, Upnagar,
Nashik 06.
8. Sagar Mukund Ambore,
Age: 29 years, Occ: Business,
R/o. Bagul Nagar, Vihitgaon, Nashik
road, Tal. & Dist. Nashik 422 101
::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:25:28 :::
2 CRI WP 525.2007.odt
9. Dada Naju Ahire,
Age: 45 years, Occ: Service,
R/o. N 53/AH 1/18/1, Rajendra Nagar,
Behind Merchant Bank, CIDCO-6,
Taluka & Dist. Nashik. ...Petitioners...
VERSUS
1. Balasaheb Shankar Gangurde,
Age: 41 years, Occ: Farmer,
R/o. Wahegaon, (Bharwas Phata)
Tq. Wahegaon, Taluka Niphad,
Dist. Nashik
2. State of Maharashtra.
..Respondents..
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. V S Janephalkar.
Advocate for Respondent 1 : Mrs. M A Kulkarni
APP for Respondent 2 : Mr. A R Kale
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV, J.
Dated : September 23, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. The petitioner-original accused in Criminal Case
No.715/2005 seeks quashment of the proceedings of
said case pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Kopargaon.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
respondent no.1 had filed private complaint bearing
Summary Criminal Case No.715/2005 before the
3 CRI WP 525.2007.odt
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kopargaon and
accordingly, the learned Magistrate has issued process
against the present petitioners and one deceased Dinkar
Jadhav for offences punishable under section 323, 504,
506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned
counsel submits that, said private complaint is a false
complaint even filed against one deceased person
namely Dinkar Jadhav who arrayed as an accused no.8
in the complaint. Said Dinkar Jadhav was serving in
judiciary as a Judge and he died on 10.12.1998. In the
complaint, incident shown to have been taken place on
15.5.2005 and said Dinkar Jadhav who died on
10.12.1998 shown to have been participated in the
incident and specific role was ascribed to him that he
beaten the complainant with the help of fist and kick
blows.
3. Learned counsel further submits that,
furthermore, one Vijay Gatalu Gaikwad who is related to
respondent no.1 Balasaheb Gangurde has also filed a
private complaint before the Magistrate at Kopargaon
bearing Criminal Case no.623/2005 against the present
4 CRI WP 525.2007.odt
applicants and also said deceased Dinkar Jadhav with
the same allegations. Respondent no.1 has filed
complaint before the Magistrate alleging therein that
present applicants and said deceased Dinkar Jadhav in
furtherance of their common intention committed the
offence punishable under section 323, 504, 506 read
with 34 of Indian penal Code and place of incident is
S.T. Stand Kopargaon. The date and place of incident is
1.5.2005 S.T. stand Kopargaon. In the complaint filed
by said Vijay Gatlu Gaikwad same date and same time
is shown, however, the place of incident is shown as
Pohegaon Bus stand. In the complaint filed by present
respondent no.1, said Vijay Gatlu Gaikwad is shown as
witness whereas in the complaint filed by Vijay Gatalu
Gaikwad present respondent no.1 Balasaheb is shown
as witness. Learned counsel submits that, the learned
Judge of the Trial Court has not bothered to direct the
investigation as provided under section 202 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure and mechanically passed order of
issuance of process. Learned counsel submits that, the
complaint filed by respondent no.1 Balasaheb is utterly
false and the same is thus liable to be quashed.
5 CRI WP 525.2007.odt
4. I have also heard the learned counsel for
respondent no.1 and the learned APP for the respondent
no.2 State.
5. It appears from the complaint filed by respondent
no.1 Balasaheb that, alleged incident had taken place
on 1.5.2005 on Sunday at about 02.00 to 02.30 p.m. at
S.T Stand Kopargaon. It has alleged in the complaint
that on that day, complainant had been to Kolapewadi
Tq. Kopargaon for attending the marriage ceremony and
all the applicant accused persons also attended said
marriage. It further appears from the allegations that a
specific role is ascribed to original accused no.8 Dinkar
Jadhav, who admittedly died in the year 1998. His
name afterwards deleted from the array of the accused
persons, however, respondent no.1-original complainant
has not bothered to delete the allegations made against
the deceased accused no.8. Furthermore, death
certificate of said Dinkar Jadhav is produced on record
and as per the contents of said death certificate,
deceased Dinkar Jadhav died on 10.12.1998. It further
appears that, Court has issued process against all
6 CRI WP 525.2007.odt
accused including deceased Dinkar Jadhav and
accordingly summons has been issued to said deceased
accused Dinkar Jadhav.
6. On perusal of complaint filed by said Vijay Gatlu
Gaikwad, it appears that incident shown to have been
occurred on 1.5.2005 on Sunday between 02.00 to
02.30 p.m. and place of incident is shown as S.T. Stand
Pohegaon. It has alleged in the complaint that, on that
day, the complainant Vijay Gatalu Gaikwad had been to
Pohegaon to attend one programme of his relative and at
that time all the applicant-accused persons including
deceased Dinkar Jadhav had also come there. In the
similar manner a particular roe is also ascribed to
deceased Dinkar Jadhav.
7. I do not think that it is possible for the applicants-
accused persons to be remain at two different places on
the same date and time when admittedly, there is a
considerable distance between village Pohegaon and
Kolapewadi. Furthermore, respondent no.1-original
complainant Balasaheb was beaten at Kolapewadi by
7 CRI WP 525.2007.odt
the applicants-accused in presence of Vijay Gatalu
Gaikwad and as per the complaint of Vijay Gatalu
Gaikwad he was beaten by the present applicants and
deceased Dinar Jadhav at village Pohegaon Tq.
Kopargaon on the same date and time. In that event, no
other inference could be drawn but to say that false
complaints came to be filed against the present
applicants.
8. In view of the above, following order is passed.
O R D E R
I. Criminal Writ Petition is allowed in terms
of prayer Clause "A".
II. Writ Petition accordingly disposed off.
Rule is accordingly made absolute in
above terms.
sd/-
( V.K. JADHAV, J. )
...
aaa/-
