Partly allowed

Vishal Shankar Pawar and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Sept 2013APPLN/434/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court Bench allowed the criminal application to quash proceedings against two applicants, Ankush and Sarika, finding the allegations against them manifestly illegal and unsupported, aimed solely to corner another family member for settlement. No other applicants were disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings against applicant nos. 7 and 8 arising out of RCC No.121/2012 are quashed and set aside.

Vishal Shankar Pawar and Ors. Vs the State of Mah… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

CR.APL.NO.434/2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.434 of 2013

¶5

1. Vishal s/o Shankar Pawar, Aged 28 years, Occ: Labour, r/o Wangani, Tq. Ambarnath, Dist. Thane.

¶6

2. Shankar s/o Waman Pawar, Aged 62 years, Occ. Retired Military personnel, r/o Wangani, Tq. Ambarnath, Dist. Thane.

¶7

3. Shevanta w/o Waman Pawar, Aged 86 years, Occ. Nil, r/o Wangani, Tq. Ambarnath, Dist. Thane, now at Venegaon, Tq. & Dist. Satara.

¶8

4. Surekha w/o Dnyanoba Dhumal, Aged 26 years, Occ. Household, r/o. Shirpur, Tq. Malshiras, Dist. Solapur.

¶9

5. Vinayak s/o. Shankar Pawar, Aged 28 years, Occ. Business, r/o Wangani, Tq. Ambarnath, Dist. Thane.

¶10

6. Pallavi @ Savita w/o Vinayak Pawar, Aged 35 years, Occ. Household, r/o Wangani, Tq. Ambarnath, Dist. Thane.

¶11

7. Ankush s/o Rameshrao Kadam, Aged 31 years, Occ. Advocate, r/o Raigadhnagar, Ambajogai, Dist.Beed.

¶12

CR.APL.NO.434/2013

¶13

¶14

8. Sarika w/o Ankush Kadam, Aged 29 years, Occ. Household, r/o. Raigadhnagar, Ambajogai, dist. Beed.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS
(Orig.accused)

¶16

VERSUS

¶17

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Police Station Officer city Police Station, Gangakhed, District Parbhani.

¶18

2.Sandhya w/o Vishal Pawar,
Aged 23 years, Occ. Household,
r/o. Wangani, Tq. Ambarnath,
Dist. Thane, now present
infront of Devre Ginning Factory,
Gangakhed, Tq. Gangakhed,
Dist. Parbhani.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

(Respondent no.1 is the Police
Station Officer, Police Station
Gangakhed and Respondent no.2
is the Original Complainant)

¶21

...

¶22

Mr. S.S.Choudhary, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. B.V.Wagh, APP for respondent State.
Mr. P.S.Agrawal, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶23

...

¶24

CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL AND

¶25

 A.I.S.CHEEMA,JJ.

¶26

Date:SEPT., 3rd, 2013

¶27

...

¶28

P.C.:-

¶29

1.Heard Mr. Choudhari and Mr. Agrawal for
respective parties.

¶30

3 CR.APL.NO.434/2013

¶31

2.On instructions, Mr. Choudhari withdraws the
Criminal Application to the extent of applicant nos. 1
to 6.

¶32

3.Applicant No.7 Ankush s/o Rameshrao Kadam
and applicant no.8 Sarika w/o Ankush Kadam reside at
Ambejogai. Sarika is sister of Vishal. In the
statement of respondent no.2 before the Police, giving
rise to First Information report dated 20.5.2012, vide
Crime No.77/2012, a sweeping averment is made to show
involvement of these two applicants. There is no
other overt act. The statement, indeed, is not
supported by any independent person or any other
family members. Deelip Jagannath Joshi, in his
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., though narrates
certain events of feud between the couple, however,
skips any reference of the applicant nos. 7 and 8.
The applicant no.7 is an Advocate practising at
Ambejogai while Smt.Sandhya, respondent no.2, resides
at Wangani, taluka Ambarnath and thereafter, she has
shifted to Gangakhed.

¶33

4.In the light of the above factual position,
this Court is required to interfere even if
chargesheet is filed as the allegations made against
the applicant nos.7 & 8 are manifestly illegal,
without any support and are made to ensure that they
are falsely roped in to corner Vishal, to succumb to
settlement or demand.

¶34

The impugned proceedings, to the extent of
applicant no.7 Ankush and applicant no.8 Sarika
arising out of RCC No.121/2012 on the file of learned
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Gangakhed, are

¶35

4 CR.APL.NO.434/2013

¶36

quashed and set aside.

¶37

This Court has not expressed any opinion on other
applicants.

¶38

Application allowed in above terms.

¶39

agp/434-13crapl

Vishal Shankar Pawar and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Shankar Pawar and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sopan Suryabhan Gagare and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ramprasad Tukaram Dabhade and Ors. Vs the State of Maharshtra and Anr.

Babasaheb Maroti Munde Vs Kanif Vithal Munde and Others

Laxman Sadashiv Savai Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Mah Vs Balasaheb@Raju Suryakant Pawade

The State of Mah Vs Haribhau Narayan Pawade and Ors.