[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Parmeshwar Chagan Sasane And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:646
CriRevn-393-2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 393 OF 2025
1) Parmeshwar s/o Chagan Sasane
Age : 31 years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Domri, Tq. Patoda,
District Beed.
At Present : Mahagaon, Tq. Gadhinglaj,
District Kolhapur.
(Husband of Deceased/Informant)
2) Chagan s/o Girija Sasane
Age : 65 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o. Domri, Taluka Patoda,
District Beed.
(Father-in-law of Deceased/Informant)
3) Kusum w/o Chagan Sasane
Age : 52 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. Domri, Taluka Patoda,
District Beed.
(Mother-in-law of Deceased/Informant)
4) Shivaji s/o Chagan Sasane
Age : 30 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o. Domri, Taluka Patoda,
District Beed.
(Brother-in-law of Deceased/Informant)
5) Alka w/o Murlidhar Waghmare
Age : 29 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. Charhata, Tq. & Dist. Beed,
At Present : Pimpalwadi,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
(Sister-in-law of Deceased/Informant)
6) Murlidhar s/o Narayan Waghmare
Age : 43 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o. Charhata, Tq. & Dist. Beed,
At Present : Pimpalwadi,
CriRevn-393-2025
-2-
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
(Husband of Sister-in-law
of Deceased/Informant)
7) Sangita w/o Yogesh Sarode
Age : 34 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. Andhalgaon Phata, Andhalgaon,
Taluka and District Pune.
(Sister-in-law of Deceased/Informant)
8) Avinash s/o Sudhakar Sarode
Age : 34 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o. Andhalgaon Phata, Andhalgaon,
Taluka and District Pune.
(Husband of Sister-in-law
of Deceased/Informant) ... Applicants
(Orig. Accused)
versus
1) The State of Maharashtra
Through : The Police Inspector of
Patoda Police Station, Beed,
Taluka and District Beed. ... Respondents
.....
Mr. Angad L. Kanade, Advocate for the Revision Petitioners.
Mr. S. G. Sangle, Advocate for the Respondent-State.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
Reserved on : 06.01.2026
Pronounced on : 08.01.2026
JUDGMENT :
1. Present revision petitioners, who are husband and in-laws of
deceased Aishwarya Sasane, are taking exception to the judgment and
order dated 21.07.2025 passed on application Exhibit 25 in Sessions
Case No. 24 of 2021 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Beed
CriRevn-393-2025
thereby rejecting their application for discharge filed by invoking
Section 227 of Cr.P.C.
2. In nutshell, on statement of deceased Aishwarya Parmeshwar
Sasane recorded while she was being treated in the hospital, Patoda
Police registered crime bearing No. 202 of 2019 for offence under
Sections 498-A, 328, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Subsequently,
Aishwarya succumbed and therefore charge under Section 302 IPC
came to be added and after investigation, charge sheet was filed
against in all 8 accused (present revision petitioners).
3. Exhibit 25 came to be pressed into service by revision
petitioners before learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Beed by
invoking Section 227 of Cr.P.C. thereby praying for discharge on the
ground of false implication about maltreatment in the backdrop of
demand of Rs.4,00,000/-. They denied physical and mental ill-
treatment and case was set up that, general and omnibus allegations
are levelled and entire family is tried to be roped in. It was pointed
out that, deceased Aishwarya died while she was put up with her
parents and as such, they are not responsible for her death in any
manner. On account of annoyance on losing Aishwarya, who
according to them died due to some physical ailment, they are falsely
CriRevn-393-2025
implicated. It was projected that deceased, after being hospitalized,
was treated and discharged after she had recovered and deceased
herself had stated to that extent in her statement, but had levelled
omnibus allegations of ill-treatment in the backdrop of demand of
Rs.4,00,000/- for purchasing car. Amongst several grounds, it is their
case that there is no sufficient material in chargesheet to make them
face trial and so they urged to discharge them. But learned trial court
was pleased to hold that there are prima facie grounds to proceed
against the applicants-accused and thereby rejected the application.
Hence instant revision.
4. On the other hand, learned APP would strongly oppose on the
ground that, deceased herself has given statement that after six
months of marriage, husband put up demand of money for car and on
account of its non fulfillment, there was both, physical and mental
cruelty, which deceased reported to her relatives. He would point out
that, there are also allegations against in-laws and other relatives for
subjecting Aishwarya to ill-treatment time to time also in the
backdrop of Rs.4,00,000/- for purchase of car. He pointed out that,
husband is specifically named for ill-treatment. He further pointed out
that, even there are allegations against mother-in-law for
administering poison which turned to be fatal and to be the cause of
CriRevn-393-2025
death. He would submit that death is unnatural. That, the act of
administration of poison was in the house of in-laws and Aishwarya
had succumbed to the same only. Complaint and statements of
various witnesses carry name of all accused persons and there being
sufficient material against them, he urges similar treatment to the
application as is accorded by learned trial Judge, i.e. by rejecting the
application.
5. At the outset, during the course of hearing and on prima facie
satisfaction, when this Court expressed its disinclination to consider
relief in favour of husband Parmeshwar and mother-in-law Kusum,
learned counsel, on instructions, seeks withdrawal of application to
their extent and accordingly permission to withdraw their application
is granted.
6. Here, applicants who are husband and in-laws of deceased
Aishwarya who died on 11.11.2019, are being chargesheeted for
commission of offence under Sections 498-A, 328, 302, 323, 504, 506
r/w 34 of IPC. Precise accusation against them is that, they subjected
deceased Aishwarya to physical and mental cruelty and mother-in-law
specifically is responsible for administering poison resulting into her
death. Now, all accused-revision petitioners are seeking discharge
under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.
CriRevn-393-2025
7. Before adverting to the merits, it would be fruitful to give a
brief account of settled legal precedents to be borne in mind while
entertaining application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. Few amongst
them which could be named are State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh
(1977) 4 SCC 39 ; Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Another
(1979) 3 SCC 4 ; R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay & Another (1986) 2 SCC
716; Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2010) 9 SCC
368 ; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra & Another (2012) 9 SCC 460
and recent judgment in the case of Asim Shariff v. National
Investigating Agency (2019) 7 SCC 148, Ram Prakash Chadha v.
State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) 10 SCC 651.
8. The ratio that is culled out is that, while dealing with an
application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., strong suspicion against the
accused cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of
the trial. But at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which
leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the
accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the court to
say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally
depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a
rule of universal application. Where the material placed before the
CriRevn-393-2025
Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been
properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge
and proceeding with the trial. By and large however, if two views are
equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced
before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion
against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the
accused.
9. Keeping in mind the above settled legal principles, sifted the
charge sheet with limited purpose to ascertain whether case for
discharge is at all made out or not. Charge sheet shows that statement
of Aishwarya, on the strength of which crime has been registered,
was recorded on 26.10.2019 while she was undergoing treatment in
Lifeline Hospital, Beed. She reported that, for a period of 5 to 6
months after marriage, she was properly treated, but when she
accompanied her husband Parmeshwar to Kolhapur at his service
place, she has levelled allegations against him for putting up demand
of car and asking her to arrange Rs.4,00,000/- from her parents and
on such count, she has alleged cruelty being inflicted to her. She
reported that on account of failure to comply, she was brought and
dropped at her in-laws' place and refused to take her back to
Kolhapur until his above monitory demand was met. Then she named
CriRevn-393-2025
father-in-law Chagan Sasane, mother-in-law Kusum Sasane, brother-
in-law Shivaji Chagan Sasane, sister-in-law Sangita Waghmare and
her husband Murlidhar for taunting her for not bringing utensils in
the marriage and she alleges she being questioned by them for not
bringing Rs.4,00,000/- for car and she being abused and beaten by
kicks and fist blows and she being kept starved. She reported the
above treatment to her family members who allegedly gave
understanding to her in-laws. She further reported in the FIR that
while she was put up with her parents-in-law, her mother-in-law
Kusum made her drink medicine from a bottle suggesting and
assuring that she would feel better, as a result of which she started
vomiting regularly and was finally dropped by her husband at her
parents' place. She also reported that on 18.07.2019, her parents
admitted her in Government Hospital at Patoda and there, on
examining her, the hospital authorities advised to shift her to GHATI
Hospital at Aurangabad and there she was allegedly told by the
doctors that her pregnancy was required to be terminated as there
was threat to her life and accordingly, her abortion was performed.
She stated that, thereafter after feeling well, she was discharged and
she went back to stay with her parents at Beed, but her complaint of
vomiting continued and she was then taken to Pune where she was
treated from 27.08.2019 till 15.09.2019 and again discharged on
CriRevn-393-2025
feeling well. But again on 25.10.2019, on same complaint she was
again admitted in Lifeline hospital at Beed where she gave above
statement against her husband and in-laws for ill-treating her on
account of demand of Rs.4,00,000/- for purchase of car.
10. On above report, Patoda Police registered crime bearing no.
020 of 2019 for offences under Sections 498-A, 328, 323, 504, 504
r/w 34 of IPC against husband and in-laws i.e. present revision
petitioners. It appears that during investigation, while statements
were recorded, Aishwarya succumbed and therefore charge under
Section 302 came to be added and after completion of investigation,
challan was filed before Sessions Court, Beed, where application
Exhibit 25 was filed and decided.
11. Prima facie from the FIR, it is emerging that there are direct
allegations against husband for putting up demand of Rs.4,00,000/-
for purchase of car for himself. Husband allegedly subjected her to
physical and mental cruelty during her stay at Kolhapur and it was he
who had dropped her at the place of her her parents-in-law. She
seems to have named parents-in-law, brother-in-law, sisters-in-law
and their husbands for also putting up demand of Rs.4,00,000/- for
purchase of car and according to her, she was abused, beaten and
CriRevn-393-2025
kept starved. However, it is pertinent to note that roles of the in-laws
are not crystallized by her by stating who amongst them did what.
Apparently, sweeping allegations are made against all in-laws.
Learned counsel for revision petitioners, on court query, has pointed
out that accused no.5 (sister-in-law), her husband accused no.6,
another sister-in-law accused no.7 and her husband accused no.8 are
residents of different places. Apparently, in the report, Aishwarya has
not stated when they came towards her to put up demand, abuse her
or keep her without food. Specific instances are not stated against
them. Even statements of the witnesses which are recorded by
investigating machinery are without specific instances and details.
However, like husband, there are specific accusations against mother-
in-law Kusum, as she is named for administering some medicine,
which later triggered episodes of continuous vomiting necessitating
her admission and treatment in the hospital. Therefore, prima facie
role of even mother-in-law Kusum is getting crystallized to a greater
extent. However, as regards to rest of the revision petitioners are
concerned, as submitted, there are sweeping, general and omnibus
allegations against them.
12. It seems that, deceased Aishwarya died on 11.11.2019.
Postmortem report, which is part of charge sheet, shows that death is
CriRevn-393-2025
due to "septicemia in a cure of alleged poisoning", however, viscera is
said to be preserved for chemical analysis and histopathological
examination. Viscera was said to be gathered and dispatched to CA on
25.11.2019 and its report is not yet received, is what is submitted by
learned APP, on court query.
13. To sum up, here, there is prima facie material against husband-
petitioner no.1 Parmeshwar as well as mother-in-law petitioner no. 3
Kusum. Hence their revision petition is disposed off as withdrawn. As
regards to rest of the petitioners are concerned, there being general,
omnibus allegations, and there being nothing concrete to show that
they are involved in raising persistent demand and further
continuously subjecting Aishwarya to physical and mental cruelty,
and no role being attributed to them in the alleged death of
Aishwarya, they succeed. Hence, following order :
ORDER
I. The Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed.
II. Leave to withdraw the application of revision petitioner no.
(1) Parmeshwar s/o Chagan Sasane and revision petitioner no.
(3) Kusum w/o Chagan Sasane is granted and their application
stands disposed off as withdrawn.
CriRevn-393-2025
III. Application of revision petitioner nos. 2 and 4 to 8, i.e.
(2) Chagan s/o Girija Sasane, (4) Shivaji s/o Chagan Sasane,
(5) Alka w/o Murlidhar Waghmare, (6) Murlidhar s/o Narayan
Waghmare, (7) Sangita w/o Yogesh Sarode and (8) Avinash s/o
Sudhakar Sarode is allowed in terms of prayer clauses [C] and
[D].
IV. The Criminal Revision Application is accordingly disposed off.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
vre
