Nilkanth Apparao Ghaytadak Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

(Judgment) (1) Cri. W.P. No. 0255 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

Criminal Writ Petition No. 0255 of 2015

¶4

`1.`	`Nilkanth s/o. Apparao Ghaytadak,`	`District : Ahmednagar`
	`Age : 41 years,`
	`Occupation : Service/Police Naik,`
	`R/o. Presently working at`
	`Superintendent of Police Office,`
	`Thane Gramin, Near Court Naka,`
	`Collector Office, Thane,`
	`Taluka & Dist. Thane.`
`2.`	`Apparao s/. Tukaram Ghaytadak,`
	`Age : 80 years,`
	`Occupation : Nil,`
	`R/o. House No. C-13,`
	`Yashwant Nagar, Govindpura,` `Behind Bajrang Mandir,`
	`Ahmednagar,`
	`Taluka & Dist. Ahmednagar.`
`3.`	`Vimalbai w/o. Apparao Ghaytadak,`
	`Age : 73 years,`
	`Occupation : Nil,`
	`R/o. House No. C-13,`
	`Yashwant Nagar,`
	`Govindpura,`
	`Behind Bajrang Mandir,`
	`Ahmednagar,`
	`Taluka & Dist. Ahmednagar.`
`4.`	`Asha d/o. Apparao Ghaytadak,`
	`Age : 43 years,`
	`Occupation : Service,`
	`R/o. C/o.Satikanth s/o. Apparao`
	`Ghaytadak,`
	`Gaurav Apartment, Pawar Nagar,`
	`Galli No.2, Old Sangvi, Pune,`
	`Dist. Pune. Presently residing at`
	`House No. C-13, Yashwant Nagar,`
	`Govindpura, Behind Bajrang`
	`Mandir, Ahmednagar,`
	`Taluka & Dist. Ahmednagar.`

¶5

(Judgment) (2) Cri. W.P. No. 0255 of 2015

¶6

`5.`	`Sau. Maya w/o. Rajendra Kuchekar,`
	`Age : 45 years,`
	`Occupation : Household,`
	`R/o. Ramnagar Police Colony,`
	`Jalna, Taluka & Dist. Jalna.`
`6.`	`Sau. Sheela w/o. Babanrao`
	`Khandagale,`
	`Age : 47 years,`
	`Occupation : Household,`
	`R/o. Ausar Karmala Saras`
	`Nagar, Ahmednagar,`
	`Taluka & Dist. Ahmednagar.`
`7.`	`Babanrao s/o. Ratanrao` `.. Petitioners.`
	`Khandagale,`
	`Age : 54 years,`
	`Occupation : Service,`
	`R/o. Ausar Karmala,`
	`Saras Nagar, Ahmednagar,`
	`Taluka & Dist. Ahmednagar.`
	`versus`
`1.`	`The State of Maharashtra,`
	`Through Police Inspector,`
	`Tofkhana Police Station,`
	`Ahmednagar,`
	`Dist. Ahmednagar.`
`2.`	`Sau. Swati w/o. Nilkanth`
	`Ghaytadak,`
	`Age : 39 years,`
	`Occupation : Household,`
	`R/o. C/o. Rajaram Gangaram` `.. Respondents.`
	`Ghodke,`
	`Siddharthnagar Shrigonda,`
	`Dist. Ahmednagar.`

¶7

...........

¶8

Mr. S.V. Mundhe, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶9

Mr. S.J. Salgare, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent no.01.

¶10

Mr. Pratap B. Vikhe, Advocate (appointed), for respondent no.02.

¶11

(Judgment) (3) Cri. W.P. No. 0255 of 2015

¶12

...........

¶13

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE & SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI,JJ.

¶14

 DATE : 30TH OCTOBER 2018

¶15

JUDGMENT [Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.] :

¶16

01.Present petition has been filed by the
original accused persons by invoking powers of this
Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India as well as inherent powers under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash and set
aside charge-sheet bearing RTC (I) No. 193 of 2014
filed by Tofkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar, before
Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Ahmednagar, for
offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506
r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

02.Respondent No.2 got married to petitioner
No.1 on 23-05-2004. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of
respondent No.2, petitioners No.2 and 3 are the
parents of petitioner No.1, and petitioners No.4 is
unmarried sister of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.5
and 6 are the married sisters of petitioner No.1.
Petitioner No.7 is the husband of petitioner No.6.

¶18

03.Respondent No.2 – informant has contended
that, her father had household articles at the time of
marriage. After marriage she went to Govindpura,
Ahmednagar at her matrimonial house to cohabit with

¶19

(Judgment) (4) Cri. W.P. No. 0255 of 2015

¶20

her husband. Her husband is serving in Police
Department and his place of posting is with Thane
Gramin. Her brother-in-law was residing at Pune in
connection with his service and petitioners No. 5 and
6 were residing at their matrimonial homes. Informant
was treated properly for about 4 months after the
marriage. Thereafter all the accused persons started
harassing her on trifle grounds. Other accused used to
instigate her husband. In the meantime, she delivered
daughter. She went to reside at Nasik, where her
husband was serving with their daughter. They resided
there for 6 months. Her husband harassed her and
therefore, she went to her father's house. She was
taken back by her husband after giving guarantee to
behave properly with her. petitioners No. 5 to 7 used
to harass her when they used to come to her house. She
had filed application for maintenance on two occasions
against her husband. On both the occasions, she was
taken back by giving promises. petitioners No. 5 to 7
used to give false information to her husband against
her in order to instigate him. Her husband used to
beat her without making any inquiry. She was then
driven out of the house by her husband on 06-02-2014
by saying that whatever his relatives are saying is
true. Since then she is residing at her parental house
with her three children. Therefore, she has lodged the
report.

¶21

04.The petitioners have contended that, there is
delay in lodging FIR. They have been falsely

¶22

(Judgment) (5) Cri. W.P. No. 0255 of 2015

¶23

implicated. Petitioners No. 2 to 7 are residing
separately and never interfered with the dispute if
any between petitioner No. 1 and informant. Informant
had resided with petitioners No. 2 and 3 only for 4
months initially. Thereafter she never resided for
longer days. The statements of the witnesses are
stereo typed. The allegations are vague. Therefore,
they have prayed for quashment of the proceedings.

¶24

05.Heard learned Advocate Mr. S. V. Mundhe
appearing on behalf of petitioners, learned Addl.
Public Prosecutor Mr. S. J. Salgare and learned
Advocate Mr. P. B. Vikhe, appointed for respondent
No.2. The petition was already withdrawn in respect of
petitioner No. 1 vide order dt. 24-08-2015. When it
was pointed out to the learned advocate for the
petitioners that, this Court is not inclined to grant
any relief to petitioners No. 2 to 4, he prayed for
withdrawal of the application as against them.

¶25

06.The application was considered only for the
allegations against the married sister-in-law
petitioners No.5, 6, and husband of petitioner No.6.
Admittedly, petitioners No. 5 and 6 were married
prior to the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and
respondent No. 2. They are residing at their
matrimonial house, since the date of their marriage.
Their causal visits to the house of petitioner No. 2
and 3 can not be imagined as purposeful in order to
harass the informant. General allegations have been

¶26

(Judgment) (6) Cri. W.P. No. 0255 of 2015

¶27

levelled against them that they used to instigate
petitioner No. 1 by saying bad things about the
informant. No specific role has been attributed
against them in respect of offence under Section 498A
of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation of demand of
amount for taking house is against petitioner No. 1
only. There are no allegations against other
petitioners regarding demand of amount. It appears
that there were litigations between petitioner No. 1
and the informant in the past and there were
compromises. No statement is made that at any point
of time, petitioners No. 5 to 7 played any role in
the said compromise. The statements of witnesses are
also on the same lines. There appears no prima facie
case against petitioners No. 5 to 7 attracting
offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code. It appears that, as a routine all the
relatives of the husband have been roped. It would be
futile exercise to ask petitioners No. 5 to 7 to face
the trial with such kind of evidence. Under such
circumstance, relief is required to be granted to the
petitioners No.5 to 7 by invoking the inherent powers
of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.

¶28

07. Hence, the following order.

¶29

(a)The petition to the extent of petitioner no.01
Nilkanth Ghaytadak is already dismissed as withdrawn
by order passed on 24.08.2015.

¶30

(Judgment) (7) Cri. W.P. No. 0255 of 2015

¶31

(b)The petition to the extent of petitioners no.02,
03 and 04, namely, Apparao Ghaytadak, Vimalbai
Ghaytadak and Asha Ghaytadak, respectively, is
disposed of as withdrawn.

¶32

(c)The petition to the extent of petitioners no.05,
06 and 07, namely, Sau. Maya Kuchekar, Sau. Sheela
Khandagale and Babanrao Khandagale, respectively, is
allowed. Relief is granted to them in terms of
prayer clause "C".

¶33

(d)Rule made absolute in the above terms.

¶34

08.Learned Advocate Mr. P.B. Vikhe was
appointed to represent the cause of respondent no.02.
His fees is quantified at Rs. 3,000/- [Rupees three
thousand] which shall be payable to him by the High
Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.

¶35

( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi ) ( T.V. Nalawade )
JUDGE JUDGE

¶36

...........

¶37

puranik / CRIWP255.15

Nilkanth Apparao Ghaytadak v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilkanth Apparao Ghaytadak v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kiran Laximanrao Donglikar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dr. Naresh Vasantrao Gavande Vs Meerabai Datta Patil and Anr.

Sunil S/O Kashinath Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Other

Sitaram Budhaji Shinde and Anr. Vs the State of Maharshtra and Anr.

Sanjay S/O Danchand Ghodawat and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dr. Govindsingh Fulchand Rajput and Anr. Vs Laxminarayan Namdeo Zalwar and Anr.