Partly allowed

Manisha Bhagwan Kamble and Another v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Police Station Samta Nagar, Mumbai and Another

Bombay HC7 Jun 2022WP/600/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment partly allows a criminal writ petition against petitioners charged under IPC 498A and 506. The court quashes the FIR against petitioner No.1 due to similarity with a previously quashed case but dismisses the petition against petitioner No.2, where allegations prima facie incriminate her.

What did the court decide?

The First Information Report against petitioner No.1, Manisha Bhagwan Kamble, is quashed and set-aside. The petition of petitioner No.2 is dismissed.

Manisha Bhagwan Kamble and Another Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

29-WP-600-2021.odt 1

¶2

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

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 600 OF 2021

¶4

1.Manisha Bhagwan Kamble,

¶5

aged 45 years, Occupation – Household,
R/o Plot No. 31, Beltarodi Road,

¶6

Near Kachore Lawn, Niwara Co-operative Housing Society,
Somalwada, Nagpur.

¶7

2.Meena Balaji Gadge,

¶8

aged 36 years, Occupation – Private, R/o Gopalpatti, Near Railway Gate, Manjri (Khurd), Haveli, Pune – 412307.

¶9

...PETITIONERS

¶10

Versus

¶11

1.State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station Samta Nagar, Mumbai.

¶12

2.Mrs. Swati w/o Vinod Kamble, aged 29 years, Occupation – Housewife, R/o C/o Flat No. 601, D – Wing, Gokul Residency, Thakur Village, Kandiwali (East), Mumbai – 400101.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Mr. Sumedh Kadam, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. S.S. Doifode, A.P.P. for respondent No.1/ State.

¶15

CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
 G.A. SANAP, JJ.

¶16

 DATED : 7 JUNE 2022.

¶17

29-WP-600-2021.odt 2

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER : SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)

¶19

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

¶20

by consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

¶21

2.Initially, the First Information Report bearing No.
130/2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and
506(2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
registered by the Police Station – Samta Nagar, District –
Mumbai was not only against the present petitioners but also
against the husband of respondent No.2 and the father-in-law,
mother-in-law and brother-in-law of respondent No.2.

¶22

3.By the judgment delivered on 26/07/2021 in
Criminal Writ Petition No. 324/2021 filed by the father-in-law,
mother-in-law and brother-in-law, i.e., Mr. Ram Keshav
Kamble, Ms. Neela Ram Kamble and Mr. Sachin Ram Kamble,
this Court quashed the First Information Report so registered
against these in-laws.

¶23

4.Now, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for
the petitioners that both these petitioners’ case is identical to
the case of the co-accused against whom the First Information
Report has been quashed by this Court.

¶24

29-WP-600-2021.odt 3

¶25

5.According to the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, the case of both the petitioners is quite
distinguishable because there are specific allegations made in
the complaint filed by respondent No.2, and that these
allegations prima facie incriminate both these petitioners in the
offences registered against them.

¶26

6.On going through the First Information Report and
the other material available on record, we find that the case of
petitioner No.1 – Manisha cannot be distinguished from the
case of the co-accused, who have been let off the hook by this
Court, and we are also of the opinion that the case of petitioner
No.2 – Meena, who is sister-in-law of respondent No.2, stands
quite distinctively on a different footing.

¶27

7.In the First Information Report filed by respondent
No.2, there are allegations of harassment made against
petitioner No.2, and taken at their face value, these allegations,
in our considered opinion, do make out a prima facie case
against petitioner No.2. Therefore, we are not inclined to allow
the petition of petitioner No.2, although as stated by us earlier,
the petition of petitioner No.1 deserves to be allowed.

¶28

29-WP-600-2021.odt 4

¶29

8.The petition is partly allowed, and it is directed that

¶30

the First Information Report registered against petitioner No.1,
Manisha Bhagwan Kamble, be quashed and set-aside forthwith.
Petition of petitioner No.2, Meena Balaji Gadge, stands
dismissed.

¶31

9.Rule is made absolute in the above terms, which is
restricted to petitioner No.1.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Sumit

¶35

SUMIT Digitally signed bySUMIT CHETAN CHETAN AGRAWAL Date: 2022.06.09 AGRAWAL 10:34:58 +0530

Manisha Bhagwan Kamble and Another v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Police Station Samta Nagar, Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manisha Bhagwan Kamble and Another v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Police Station Samta Nagar, Mumbai and Another

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

Mohd. Imran Ansari Thr. His Legal Guardian Mohd. Shafique Ansari Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Khapa Tehsil Tq.Saoner and Dist.Nagpur (Rural) Mah.

Prof. Anand S/O Narayanrao Poharkar and Anr. Vs Lokmat Newspaper Charitable Trust and Ors.

Sanket Waman Dhanorkar and Another Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Warora Tqwarora Distchandrapur and Another

Jayesh Navnitlal Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Police Station Wadi, Nagpur and Another

Atul S/O Ambadas Bhagwat Vs Preeti Bondre, Deputy Director, S. T. Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division, Amravati

Audambar Shiv Shrushti Samiti Thr. Member, Sudhakar Yashvantrao Lomate, Yavatmal Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Mumbai and Others