[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Tushar Madhukar Darkunde And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 25 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:8181
{1} REVN 42 OF 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 42 OF 2024
1. Tushar s/o Madhukar Darkunde
Age: 20 years, Occu.: Education,
2. Nita Madhukar Darkunde
Age: 45 years, Occu.: Agril. & Household,
3. Surekha Dattatraya Darkunde
Age: 38 years, Occu.: Agril. & Household,
4. Sangita Sudam Darkunde
Age: 40 years, Occu.: Agril. & Household,
All R/o. Bahirwadi, Post - Jeur,
Tal. And Dist. Ahmednagar. ..Applicants
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station Officer,
M.I.D.C., Police Station,
Tq. Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar.
2. Mahadeo s/o Haribhau Darkunde
Age; 56 yrs., Occu.: Agril.
R/o. Sasewadi, Post - Jeur,
Tal. & Dist. Ahmednagar. .Respondents
.....
Advocate for Applicant : Mr.Rajendra Sudam Kasar
Advocate for Respondent no.1 : Mr.B.V.Virdhe
Advocate for Respondent no.2 : Mr.Manoj Ramdas Khutwad
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 23 FEBRUARY, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 25 FEBRUARY, 2026
{2} REVN 42 OF 2024
ORDER :
1. Aggrieved by rejection of discharge application at Exhibit 3 in
Sessions Case No.78 of 2022, dated 04-03-2023, passed by learned
District Judge-7 and Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, present
revision application has been pressed into service.
2. Learned counsel for revision petitioners would point out that
present revision petitioners are arraigned as original accused nos.4,
5, 6 and 7. That, revision petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 are lady folks.
That, they are falsely implicated. That, their specific roles are not
crystallized. It is pointed out that, as regards to revision petitioner
no.1 is concerned, there are general and vague allegations of giving
kick and fists blows. That, in the entire chargesheet, there is no
incriminating material and therefore, prayers for discharge are urged
to be granted.
3. Learned counsel for respondent no.2/informant as well as
learned APP have both opposed on the ground that there is sufficient
material. That, revision petitioners are named. That, they are
charged for serious offence of attempt to murder and causing
grievous injuries and therefore, they justify the order of rejection of
{3} REVN 42 OF 2024
discharge application by the trial court.
4. Before adverting to merits of the case, it would be just and
proper to spell out settled legal position while considering discharge
application under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. It is fairly
settled position that, at such stage, Court dealing with such
application is merely expected to determine existence of prima facie
material for proceeding to frame charge and make accused persons
face trial. Material gathered during investigation is expected to be
sifted with limited purpose to find out whether there are sufficient
grounds to proceed against accused. Neither in-depth analysis nor
meticulous analysis of evidence is expected at such stage. Thus, the
only duty of Court is to ascertain whether there is prima facie
material suggesting existence of essential ingredients for the offences,
which are alleged to be committed.
Above position has been time and again reiterated since the
cases of State of Bihar v/s Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39; Union of
India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another (1979) 3 SCC 4 , and a
decade back in the cases of Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of
Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander
and another (2012) 9 SCC 460; State of Tamil Nadu (By Inspector of
{4} REVN 42 OF 2024
Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption) v. N.Suresh Rajan and Others.
(2014) 11 SCC 709; Asim Shariff v. National Investigation Agency
(2019) 7 SCC 148; and Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of Uttar
Pradesh (2024) 10 SCC 651.
5. With above limited purpose, papers are put to scrutiny.
Incident in question, which triggered lodgment of FIR, is of
21-04-2021. Substance of the report recorded while undergoing
treatment is that, on 21-04-2021, while informant was watering the
onion crop, he stated that, when his wife went to switch off the
motor over the well, at that time, his sisters-in-law namely Nita
Madhukar Darkunde, Surekha Dattatraya Darkunde and Sangita
Sudam Darkunde laughed at him and when he questioned them, it is
alleged that they started abusing him. This was followed by arrival
of husbands of above ladies namely Madhukar Haribhau Darkunde,
Dattatraya Haribhau Darkunde, Sudam Haribhau Darkunde
respectively and one Tushar Madhukar Darkunde, and it is alleged
that Madhukar assaulted informant by means of Danda on thigh,
legs, arms, Dattatraya hit informant by iron rod on back and
abdomen, whereas Sudam used iron axe for hitting informant on the
head and tried to commit his murder. It is further reported that, after
{5} REVN 42 OF 2024
informant fell down, present revision petitioner no.1 Tushar and all
others gave kick and fists blows and abused him. When his wife
came to his rescue, she was also manhandled. On above report,
MIDC Police Station, Ahmednagar, seems to have registered Crime
bearing No.252 of 2021 for offence under Sections 307, 324, 323,
504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and under Sections
37(1)(3), 135 of Mumbai Police Act.
6. Chargesheet comprises of medical papers carrying history of
assault. Statement of wife of informant is also recorded. Apparently,
as regards to revision petitioners nos.2, 3 and 4 are concerned, there
are mere allegations of initially laughing at informant and then
hurling abuses and in turn their husbands allegedly came there and
they allegedly put articles like Danda, iron rad, axe into use. After
informant fell down, revisions petitioner no.1 namely Tushar
indulged in beating him though by kick and fists blows. However, as
stated above, there are vague and general allegations against
revision petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4. Therefore, they succeed except
revision petitioner no.1. Accordingly, revision application deserves to
be partly allowed. Hence, following order :
{6} REVN 42 OF 2024
ORDER
(I) Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed.
(II) Application of revision petitioner no.1 i.e. Tushar
Madhukar Darkunde is rejected.
(III) Application of revision petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 i.e.
(2) Nita Madhukar Darkunde, (3) Surekha
Dattatraya Darkunde and (4) Sangita Sudam
Darkunde is allowed in terms of prayer clause [B].
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
JUDGE
SPT
