Bombay High Court
Sangita W/O Ramesh Sagar vs Usha Tanaji Piske And Others on 30 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:27173
1 of 9 40-Cr.WP.1437.2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
40 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1437 OF 2024
Sangita w/o Ramesh Sagar,
Age-55 Years Occ- House wife
R/at. Gurumauli Nivas,
House no. R/1308/1, CTS no. 4407,
Mitra Nagar, Main Road, Latur. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Usha Tanaji Piske,
Age: 55 years, Occ: Housewife
2. Santosh Tanaji Piske,
Age: 37 years, Occ: Service,
3. Swati Tanaji Piske,
Age: 30 years, Occ: Housewife,
Res nos.1 ot 3 residing at,
Swapnapurti Niwas,
Near Water Tank,
Behind Royal Pan Shop,
Gajanan Marg, Barshi Road,
Latur, Ta. And Dist. Latur.
4. Madhukar Bansilal Gangne,
Age: 41 years, Occ: Service,
R/at. Gayatri Nagar, Latur,
Tq. and dist. Latur. ... Respondents
(Orig. Accused Nos.1 to 4)
5. The State of Maharashtra,
At the Instance of
Shivaji Nagar Police Station. ... Respondents
...
Mr. Avinash M. Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Hanmant V. Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Mr. G. O. Wattamwar, APP for Respondent No.5-State.
...
CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.
RESERVED ON : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2025
2 of 9 40-Cr.WP.1437.2024.odt
JUDGMENT:
-
1. Heard Mr. Avinash M. Reddy, learned Advocate for the
Petitioner; Mr. Hanmant V. Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent
Nos.1 to 4; and Mr. G. O. Wattamwar, Learned APP for Respondent
No.5-State.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the
Advocate for the parties being disposed of finally.
3. The Petitioner is praying for quashing and setting aside the
impugned order dated 1st June 2024 passed in Revision Petition No. 54
of 2023 by learned Additional Session Judge-3 at Latur, wherein order
dated 7th July 2023 passed below Exh. 36 by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court at Latur in R.C.C. No.379 of 2023 discharging
Respondents Nos.1 to 4 came to be maintained.
4. Initially based on report of the Petitioner and the chargesheet
therein total five Accused were being prosecuted for the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 294, 323, 504, 506 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, vide impugned
order dated 7th July 2023 passed by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Latur charge came to be framed against only Accused No.1 and under
Section 239 of Cr.P.C. Accused No.2 to 5 i.e. Respondent Nos.1 to 4
herein came to be discharged.
3 of 9 40-Cr.WP.1437.2024.odt
5. The Petitioner i.e. Informant has filed Crime No.91 of
2025. In the said FIR, she alleged that she had rented her ground floor
premises to one-Tanaji Pandharinath Piske for the period of 11 months.
However, even after expiry of the said period, Tanaji did not vacate the
premises, which gave rise to a civil dispute pending between them. On
17th May 2015 at about 8:42 to 9:00 a.m., the Informant-Petitioner had
gone to ground floor to switch on the panel board button of the
borewell. At that time, it is alleged that the said tenant-Tanaji Piske
abused her with abusive words and also assaulted her by fist and kick
blows on legs and back. It is also alleged that, thereafter, the said
Tanaji made phone call to his wife, daughter-Swati, son-Santosh, his
friend-Madhukar (all Respondent Nos.1 to 4) and one unknown
woman. All these persons have also abused her in filthy language and
threatened to kill her. Therefore, the crime came to be registered
against said five persons and one unknown woman for the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 294, 323, 504, 506 read with
Section 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet
came to be filed against five Accused persons. The present Respondent
Nos.1 to 4 are arrayed as Accused Nos.2 to 5 therein.
6. According to Mr. Reddy, learned Advocate for the Petitioner,
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur while passing the
impugned order dated 7th July 2023, has not considered material on
record. It was contended that in respect of First Information Report
4 of 9 40-Cr.WP.1437.2024.odt
No.91 of 2015, the chargesheet was filed against Respondent Nos.1 to
4. On perusal of the chargesheet, according to him, it appears that
sufficient material was collected by the police, thereby pointing out
direct role of Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the commission of the
aforesaid offence.
7. He further contended that the material submitted in the final
report is attributing specific role of Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the crime.
According to him, in view of sufficient material available against
Respondent Nos.1 to 4, learned Lower Courts below ought not to have
discharged them. According to him, learned Lower Courts below erred
in deciding about the presence of the Accused person on the spot or
not. He contended that such exercise was to be carried out by leading
evidence to that effect and not at the time while deciding the discharge
application. He again further pointed out that there is sufficient
material against Respondent Nos.1 to 4 available in the chargesheet as
such learned Lower Courts below ought not to have discharged them.
8. On the contrary, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to
4 took this Court through the statements of witnesses as well as orders
passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur. According to him,
the incident is dated 17th May 2015. However, FIR is registered on 19 th
May 2015. In the FIR, the role of Accused Nos.2 to 5 is appearing to be
vague and general. According to him, though the incident is dated 17 th
5 of 9 40-Cr.WP.1437.2024.odt
May 2015 and one certificate annexed in the charge-sheet discloses
nature of injuries of conclusion on the right thigh. The said
examination was conducted on 17th May 2015. However, another
Discharge Card of MLC/3209/SLS/15 discloses the Petitioner-
Informant was admitted to Government Hospital on 27 th May 2015 and
there were certain multiple contusions and abrasions. The police
recorded her statement on 24th May 2015 in the hospital and but the
crime was registered on 27th May 2015. The MLC number indicating
on the injury certificate indicates that the Petitioner-Informant was
admitted on 22nd May 2015 in the Government Hospital and
discharged on 27th May 2015. The Crime No.91 of 2015 came to be
registered on the basis of statement recorded on 24 th May 2015, but
same has been registered on 27 th May 2015 for the offences punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 294, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of
IPC. The allegations which are made against Accused No.1 in FIR
dated 17th May 2015 are similar allegations made against Accused No.1
in the report dated 27th May 2015. However, the allegations which are
made against Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the earlier report are not
similar as made in the later FIR. The statements witnesses, namely,
Ramesh Sagar, Nagesh Sagar, Jyoti Nikam and Ashok Kamble are
recorded by police on 28th May 2015.
9. Mr. Hanmant Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1
to 4 would submit that there is prima-facie case against Accused No.1-
6 of 9 40-Cr.WP.1437.2024.odt
Tanaji. However, there is no material available on record against
present Respondents. The allegations appearing against them are
vague and obnoxious in nature. No specific role is attributed against
any of Accused Nos.2 to 5. Deliberate presence of all the family
members at the time of commission of crime is, therefore, not reliable
and probable to presume their guilt. However, in second FIR dated
22nd May 2015, the role of Respondent No.1 is deliberately stated and
in exaggerated form, the story has been put up against them. He
further contended that there is concurrent finding of both the Courts
below and as such, in such contingency, it would not be appropriate to
interfere with the said concurrent findings. As such, he prayed for
maintaining the orders passed by learned Lower Court below.
10. It is clear from the record that the Petitioner had earlier filed
a complaint with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Latur and also to the
Superintendent of Police, Latur. The S.P. of Latur directed police to
inquire into the complaint. The police therefore recorded the statement
of Petitioner on 20.05.2015. The police closed the complaint thereby
giving notice under Section 149 of Cr.P.C. to both sides. However
thereafter Petitioner got admitted to Government Hospital, Latur on
22.05.2015 and police recorded her statement/complaint on
24.05.2015 and police registered the Crime No.91 of 2015 on
27.05.2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 294,
323 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
7 of 9 40-Cr.WP.1437.2024.odt
11. In pursuance to the aforesaid submissions, it is to be stated
here that the initial crime discloses that the Accused-Tanaji had
quarreled with Petitioner and he assaulted her. However, in second
incident, it is stated that the Accused-Tanaji phone called his relative
i.e. present Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and asked them to come to the spot.
According to the Petitioner, after Respondent Nos.1 to 4 also reached
and they have also abused her in filthy language. They also threatened
to kill her. The Informant as well as her statements coupled with the
statements of other witnesses disclosed that the allegations are specific
against the particular Accused No.1. There are general allegations
against all the other Accused. The submission of learned Advocate for
Respondent Nos.1 to 4 that when Respondent Nos.1 to 4 reached to the
spot, there was no meeting of mind between Respondent Nos.1 to 4
and Accused No.1-Tanaji assumes significance. As such, they cannot be
held to be the members of unlawful assembly. As there are general
allegations of Informant and witnesses, Accused Nos.2 to 5 i.e.
Respondent Nos.1 to 4 cannot be said to be the members of unlawful
assembly and they also cannot be said to have participated in the
crime.
12. The learned Lower Courts below, after considering the
submissions of learned Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 4, have
passed detailed order after appreciating the material before it. No fault
can be found either on facts or on law in the said judgments. The
8 of 9 40-Cr.WP.1437.2024.odt
learned session judge while passing judgment in revision petition was
pleased to consider that Respondents Nos.1 to 4 were not present when
the incident of assault and abusing took place. Even after their arrival
on spot, they in chorus alleged to have abused Petitioner, and there are
no specific allegation against the particular Accused. Thus, both the
Courts have considered the material in police report available against
the Accused persons and accordingly passed their respective
judgments.
13. The law regarding exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227
of the Constitution of India is very much clear that High Court in the
guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot convert itself
into the Court of appeal. The power of Superintendence confirmed by
Article 227 is to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate
cases in order to keep sub-ordinate Courts within the bounds of their
authority and not for correcting mere errors. Even under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., this Court would be entitled to interfere and when there is
abuse of process of law and particularly when frivolous or malicious
proceedings are initiated. In this case, the proceedings against
Respondent Nos.1 to 4 is prima-facie found to be unwarranted.
Therefore, as the impugned orders passed by learned Lower Court
below does not discloses any procedural errors, perversity or violation
or breach of any law, and as both the learned Courts below have passed
the orders after going through the material before them, the instant
9 of 9 40-Cr.WP.1437.2024.odt
petition therefore fails and needs to be rejected.
14. The view taken by learned Lower Court below on the basis
of police final report is correct and proper. In view of this, no case for
interference is made out and, therefore, this Court proposes to pass
following order.
15. Hence, the instant petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
No order as to cost.
(SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)
Tauseef
