Sunita Gajanan Gadekar And Others vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Police Station ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 3684 Bom

Bombay High Court

Sunita Gajanan Gadekar And Others vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Police Station ... on 20 August, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:8278




              Judgment

                                                                453 apl160.25



                                          1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                         NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                    CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.160 OF 2025

              1. Sau.Sunita Gajanan Gadekar,
              aged about 55 years,
              occupation - housewife,
              r/o Shembal Pimpri, tahsil, Pusad,
              district Yavatmal.

              2. Shri Sagar Gajanan Gadekar,
              aged about 32 years,
              occupation - data work,
              r/o Shembal Pimpri, tahsil Pusad,
              district Yavatmal.

              3. Bakulabai Shankar Rajekar,
              aged about 79 years,
              occupation : housewife,
              r/o Tilak Chowk, Washim,
              district Washim.                    . ..... Applicants.

                                   :: V E R S U S ::

              1. State of Maharashtra,
              through Police Station Officer,
              Washim, tahsil and district Washim.

              2. Smt.Madhuri wd/o Aychut @ Jugal
              Rajekar, aged about 43 years,
              occupation - agriculturist,
              r/o Tilak Chowk, Washim,

                                                                      .....2/-
 Judgment

                                                453 apl160.25



                              2

tahsil and district Washim.       ..... Non-applicants.

Shri M.P.Kariya, Counsel for the Applicants.
Shri A.J.Gohokar, Addl.P.P. for the State.
Shri Y.P.Bhelonde, Counsel for Non-applicant No.2.

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
CLOSED ON : 22/07/2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 20/08/2025

JUDGMENT

1. By this application, the applicants are seeking

quashing and setting aside proceeding of Sessions Trial

No.33/2020 arising out of Crime No.81/2020 registered

under Sections 143, 146, 147, 149, 302, 504, and 506 of

the IPC.

2. On the basis of directions given in the application

filed under Section 156(3) of the CrPC filed by non-

applicant No.2 Madhuri Aychut @ Jugal Rajekar, who is

wife of Jugal (the deceased), Crime No.81/2020 was

registered against the applicants. As per the contentions

.....3/-

Judgment

453 apl160.25

in the application, the applicants are relatives of the

deceased. Initially, merg bearing no.40/2018 was

registered against the applicants on 21.11.2018 as death

of the deceased occurred in the house. The non-applicant

No.2 is the wife of the deceased and their marriage was

performed on 13.5.2001. Due to the discord between her

and the the deceased, she was residing along with her

parents. On 20.11.2018, she was informed about the

death of her husband and, therefore, she visited her

matrimonial home and observed that there were injuries

on the person of the deceased. However, due to death of

her husband, she was not in a sound mental condition

and she was not aware the exact cause of death.

Therefore, she has not raised any suspicion as to the

death of her husband. On 7.7.2019, she was informed by

her neighbour that on the day of Diwali Festival, her

husband was assaulted by the applicants and other family

.....4/-

Judgment

453 apl160.25

members. Similar fact was informed to her by the other

neighbours also. Therefore, she approached the police

station, but as the police have not taken cognizance of her

complaint, she approached the court seeking directions to

investigate the mater and to register the crime against the

persons who assaulted her husband.

3. Learned Magistrate passed an order below Exh.1

and allowed the application and directed the Washim City

Police Station to register the offence. After registration of

the offence, the investigation was carried out as the

postmortem report was already collected during the

investigation of merg report. Therefore, various

statements are recorded and after recording of the

statements, the chargesheet was filed against the

applicants and other co-accused.

.....5/-

Judgment

453 apl160.25

4. Now, the present application is filed on the ground

that death of the deceased is caused due to "Bilateral

Pulmonary Consolidation," which is natural death. The

deceased was suffering from various ailments which

resulted into his death and the applicants are no way

concerned with the cause of death of the deceased and,

therefore, directions given by the Magistrate and filing of

the chargesheet itself are erroneous. By way of seeking

the provisions under Section 482 of the CrPC (528 of the

BNSS), the applicants prayed for quashing of the

proceeding.

5. Heard learned counsel Shri M.P.Kariya for the

applicants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri

A.J.Gohokar for the State, and learned counsel Shri

Y.P.Bhelonde for non-applicant No.2.

.....6/-

Judgment

453 apl160.25

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that

applicant no.1 is sister, applicant No.2 is nephew, and

applicant No.3 is mother of the deceased. During life

time of the husband, non-applicant No.2 filed various

litigation against her husband. She never resided along

with him. She also claimed her right in the property of

her husband and by taking disadvantage of the death of

the deceased, she is taking revenge against the applicants

by implicating them in the false and baseless FIR. The

deceased was addicted by vices due to which he was

suffering from ailments and death of the deceased is also

a natural death and, therefore, the proceedings in sessions

trial against the present applicants deserve to be quashed.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State

strongly opposed the application and submitted that

eyewitnesses who are neighbours corroborated the story

.....7/-

Judgment

453 apl160.25

of the complainant which shows that on the day of the

incident, the deceased was assaulted by applicants and

other co-accused.

Whether the assault was sufficient to cause death

of the deceased is a matter or evidence.

At this stage, considering the postmortem report

showing injuries on the person of the deceased, the

application deserves to be rejected.

8. On hearing both the sides and perusing the

investigation papers, there is no dispute as to the fact that

initially merg report was registered on the basis of report

lodged by non-applicant No.2. Death of the deceased

occurred on 20.11.2018. During the investigation, the

statement of non-applicant No.2 and other witnesses are

recorded. Subsequently, on 16.2.2020, first time non-

applicant No.2 approached the police and gave her

.....8/-

Judgment

453 apl160.25

statement that she was informed on 7.7.2019 by her

neighbours that her husband was assaulted and has

caused his death. Said Statement was recorded after the

directions by the Magistrate of registering the FIR. As per

the statement of non-applicant No.2, on 7.7.2019, she

came to know about the said incident. On 23.7.2019, she

approached the Magistrate and filed application under

Section 156(3) of the CrPC. By passing order on

10.2.2020, the Magistrate directed the police station to

register the crime and, thereafter, the statement came to

be recorded. After registration of the FIR, statements of

Arun Kankar, Balaji Khankar, Shubha Khankar, PHC

Maruti were recorded. From their statements, it revealed

that they witnessed that on 20.11.2018 the deceased was

assaulted by the applicants and other family members.

The postmortem report collected during the investigation

also shows injuries on the person of the deceased.

.....9/-

Judgment

453 apl160.25

9. Thus, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

State submitted that at this stage, statements recorded are

sufficient to proceed with the trial. The powers under

Sections 226 and 227 of the CrPC are to be exercised in

exceptional circumstances. Therefore, he prays for

rejection of the application.

10. On hearing both the sides and perusing of the

record available, there is no dispute as to fact that initially

merg was registered and non-applicant No.2 who was

present at the spot have not made any complaint as to the

cause of the death of the deceased. It is also an admitted

position that non-applicant No.2 and the deceased were

legally married, but due to discord between them, they

were not residing together. Applicant no.1 is sister,

applicant No.2 is nephew, and applicant No.3 is mother of

the deceased. The facts on record show that first time

.....10/-

Judgment

453 apl160.25

non-applicant No.2 came to know about the incident

dated 20.11.2018 as she was informed by one Arun

Shelke and she came to know that on day of the incident,

her husband was assaulted. Therefore, she approached

police station and as the police have not taken

cognizance, she approached the Magistrate and as per the

directions of the Magistrate, the crime was registered

against the applicants. The said contention of non-

applicant No.2 is supported by neighbours namely Balaji

Kankhar, Arun Kankar, Suman Kankar, and PC Maruti.

Injuries are also seen while conducting the postmortem of

the deceased.

11. The postmortem report shows that there were

injuries on the person of the deceased in the nature of

contusion 3x3 cms over left hand on the prone side and

contusion of 1cm x 3 cm under right ear. Initially, cause

.....11/-

Judgment

453 apl160.25

of death was not opined by the medical officer. After

receipt of the CA Report, he opined that the cause of

death is due to "Bilateral Pulmonary Consolidation. The

"bilateral" refers to the feeling of air spaces in both lungs

with fluid or other material, instead of air, leading to

increase density on imaging. This condition often sign of

various lungs diseases.

12. The documents on record also show that the

deceased was under treatment for various ailments.

13. At the same time, the statements of above said

witnesses show that the deceased was assaulted on the

day of the incident, cannot be ignored at this stage.

14. Whether the applicants contributed to the death of

the deceased or not is a matter of evidence.

15. At this stage, considering the statements of

witnesses and in absence of any material to show that .....12/-

Judgment

453 apl160.25

there is any reason for them to grind axe the applicants,

exercising powers under Section 482 of the CrPC would

not be proper at this stage.

16. In this view of the matter, the application being

devoid of merits is liable to be rejected and the same is

rejected.

Application stands disposed of.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

!! BrWankhede !!

Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../- Date: 22/08/2025 11:25:20