SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shivaji S/O. Abarao Sanap And … vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 20 June, 2018

1 Application 990 of 2018


Criminal Application No.990 of 2018

1) Shivaji s/o Abarao Sanap,
Age 64 years,
Occupation: Pensioner
R/o At Post Dusarbid,
Ward No.2, Taluka Sindhkhedraja,
District Buldhana.

2) Suman w/o Shivajirao Sanap,
Age 54 years,
Occupation: Household
R/o As above.

3) Gangadhar s/o Dagadu Dhakane,
Age 74 years,
Occupation : Agriculture
R/o At post Devkhad,
Taluka Sindhkhedraja,
District Buldhana. .. Applicants.


1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector,
Jintur Police Station,
Taluka Jintur,
District Parbhani.

2) Arjun s/o Ganpatrao Kedar,
Age 62 years,
Occupation: Pensioner,
R/o Sirpura, Taluka Kaij,
District Beed. .. Respondents.


Shri. Suvidh S. Kulkarni, Advocate, for applicants.

::: Uploaded on – 22/06/2018 23/06/2018 02:41:23 :::
2 Application 990 of 2018

Shri. S.B. Pulkundwar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for
respondent No.1.

Shri. S.S. Thombre, Advocate, for respondent No.2.


Date: 20 JUNE 2018

JUDGMENT (Per T.V. Nalawade, J.):

1) Rule, rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

both the sides by consent for final disposal.

2) Present proceeding is filed under section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure for the relief of quashing

of F.I.R. No.54/2018 registered in Jintur Police Station,

District Parbhani for offences punishable under sections

498A, 302, 34 etc. of the Indian Penal Code. Interim relief

was granted by this Court on 23-4-2018 and the

investigating agency was directed not to file charge sheet

against the applicants till the returnable date.

3) During arguments when this Court expressed

that no relief can be granted in favour of applicant Nos.1

::: Uploaded on – 22/06/2018 23/06/2018 02:41:23 :::
3 Application 990 of 2018

and 2, Shivaji and Suman, learned counsel for the

applicants, on instructions, submitted that he wants to

withdraw the application of these two applicants.

Argument was advanced for the relief in favour of

applicant No.3 – Gangadhar Dhakane.

4) F.I.R. is given by Arjun Ganpatrao Kedar, father

of deceased Mira. Deceased Mira was given in marriage to

Ganesh, son of applicant Nos.1 and 2 and they are

residents of Jintur. Both Ganesh and the deceased were

dental surgeons. The marriage took place in May 2010.

No issue was born out of this marriage.

5) Allegations are made by the father of the

deceased that after two years of the marriage the

husband, his parents and Gangadhar Dhakane, who

happens to be the husband of the paternal aunt of Ganesh

started harassing Mira. Allegations are made that the

husband started demanding money by saying that he

wanted to construct a separate hospital and for that he

wanted Rs. Five lakh from the parents of Mira. The father

of Mira gave amount of Rs. One lakh on first occasion,

::: Uploaded on – 22/06/2018 23/06/2018 02:41:23 :::
4 Application 990 of 2018

Rs.1.5 lakh on the second occasion and Rs.50,000 on the

third occasion by transferring the amounts in the account

of Mira. Even then the ill-treatment was continued.

6) On 3-3-2018 information was given to the

father of Mira that Mira was sick. On 4-3-2018 the father

of Mira, first informant, went to Jintur to see Mira. On that

day, Ganesh again demanded Rs. Five lakh from the first

informant. The first informant expressed that he was

retired man and there was no money with him for meeting

this demand. Allegations are made that on that occasion

Ganesh, his parents and even Dhakane said that the

demand must be met with otherwise something may

happen to Mira. On 4-3-2018 Mira was admitted in a

hospital from Jalna as she was sick. When all of them were

present in the hospital, the first informant received a

message that his elder brother Ramrao had suffered heart

attack and he was dead. After hearing this, the first

informant immediately left for his village.

7) On 5-3-2018 when the first informant was

present in village Sirpur, the father of the husband gave

::: Uploaded on – 22/06/2018 23/06/2018 02:41:23 :::
5 Application 990 of 2018

message to him at 4.30 p.m. that Mira had committed

suicide by hanging herself in their hospital from Jintur.

The first informant rushed to Jintur where the dead body

was present. After seeing the dead body, the first

informant suspected that it was not suicide but it was

murder and so he gave report to police on 6-3-2018 and

the crime came to be registered for the offences

punishable under sections 498-A, 302, 34 of the Indian

Penal Code.

8) Papers of investigation show that there are

statements of persons who know the family of the

applicants and the main allegations are against Dr.

Ganesh. There was a talk that Ganesh had extra marital

affairs with few women and he used to quarrel as the

deceased could not conceive. The material however does

not show that applicant No.3 was present in Jintur on the

day of the incident. Dead body was found in hanging

position in the hospital of Ganesh. Applicant No.3

Gangadhar Dhakane is resident of Devkhed, Tahsil

Sindhkhedraja, District Buldhana. Allegations as against

him are very vague. His relationship is also not that close.

::: Uploaded on – 22/06/2018 23/06/2018 02:41:23 :::

6 Application 990 of 2018

9) If the crime is registered for offence under

section 302 IPC, in such case it is always desirable to file

charge sheet for offences punishable under sections 302,

306, 498-A of IPC. In view of the aforesaid material it

cannot be said that there is no material as against the

husband and his parents. However, it can be safely said

that the material available and the allegations made in the

FIR are not that convincing and it is not sufficient to make

out any of the aforesaid offences as against applicant

No.3. This Court holds that relief needs to be granted in

favour of applicant No.3 only. So, following order :

10) Application of applicant No.3 is allowed in

terms of prayer clause (B). The application of applicant

Nos.1 and 2 is disposed of as withdrawn. Rule made

absolute in the above terms.

Sd/- Sd/-


::: Uploaded on – 22/06/2018 23/06/2018 02:41:23 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation