SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 1638

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
ASHOK NARAYAN GANDOLE AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAH. THR. PSO PS RISOD TQ. RISOD DIST. WASHIM AND ANOTHER – Respondent
APL 643 / 2023



2025:BHC-NAG:3705-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 643 OF 2023

1. Ashok Narayan Gandole, Aged about 57 Yrs., Occ. Agriculturist, R/o. Vyankatesh Nagar, Anjan Colony, Risod, Tq. Risod, Distt. Washim At Present R/o. Flat No. 805, JDC Platinum Tower, Maharshee Nagar Pune (Maharashtra).

2. Varsha Ashok Gandole, Aged about 52 yrs., Occ.: Household, R/o. Vyankatesh Nagar, Anjan Colony, Risod, Tq. Risod, Distt. Washim At Present R/o. Flat No. 805, JDC Platinum Tower, Maharshee Nagar Pune (Maharashtra).

3. Ganesh Balaji Dhole, Aged about 43 yrs., Occ.: Nil, R/o. Risod, Tq. Risod, Dist. Washim.

4. Mahesh Dnyandeo Devgire, Aged about 40 yrs., Occ.: Nil, R/o. Flat No. 805, JDC Platinum Tower, Maharshee Nagar, Pune (Maharashtra)

5. Dinesh Namdeo Dorshetwar, Aged about 45 yrs., Occ.: Business, R/o. Mohan Nagar, Nagpur

6. Bhagwat Chhagan Pede, Aged about 42 yrs., Occ.: Nil, R/o. Charkha Layour, Risod, Dist.

Washim

7. Hari Namdeo Deogire, Aged about 45 yrs., Occ.: Nil, R/o. Flat No. 805, JDC Platinum Tower, Maharshee Nagar, Pune (Maharashtra)

8. Renu Dinesh Dorshetwar, Aged about 42 yrs., Occ.: Household, R/o. Mohan Nagar, Nagpur

9. Bharat Dnyaneshwar Deogire, Aged about 45 yrs., Occ.: Nil, R/o. Flat No. 805, JDC Platinum Tower, Maharshee Nagar, Pune (Maharashtra)

10. Aruna Sanjay Halge, Aged about 40 yrs., Occ.: Household, R/o. Amardas Road, Risod, Tq. Risod, Distt. Washim

11. Uddhav Narayan Gandole, Aged about 72 yrs., Occ.:Nil, R/o. Yeota, Tq. Risod, Distt. Washim 12. Samadhan Madhukar Yelaskar, Aged about 36 Yrs., Occ.: Nil., R/o. Yeota, Tq. Risod, Distt. Washim ...APPLICANTS // V E R S U S //

1. State of Maharashtra, Through its Police Station Officer, Police Station Risod, Tq. Risod, District Washim

2. Bhagwat Sakharam Gawali, Aged : Major, Occu.: Not known, R/o Risod, Tq. Risod, NON-APPLICANTS District Washim -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr Rahul S Kurekar, Advocate for the applicants Ms Mayuri Deshmukh, APP for Non-applicant No. 1/State Mr Firdos Mirza, Sr. Adv. a/b Ms Isha Thakare, Advocate for non-applicant No.2 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.

DATED : APRIL 7 , 2025 .

O R A L J U D G M E N T : (PER : ANIL S. KILOR, J.)

1. Leave to amend prayer clause is allowed. Amendment be carried out forthwith.

2. Heard.

3. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

4. In the present application, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C.", for short), prayer is made for quashing the Charge-Sheet No.10/2021 dated 11.03.2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 341, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC", for short), registered with Risod Police Station, District Washim.

5. It is the case of the prosecution that the non-applicant No.2 lodged the First Information Report (“FIR”, for short) against the present applicants and co-accused – Upendra Muely alleging that on 31.03.2019, Bhawana Gawali, Member of Parliament and also the Chairman of Mahila Utkarsh Pratishthan, Risod, constituted a disciplinary committee for enquiry in the said society to examine the allegations as regards misappropriation of the funds of the society to the extent of Rs.18 to Rs.20 Crores and the involvement of the persons in the said fraud. It is further alleged that the accused offered a bribe amount to the non-applicant No.2 for taking back the report allegedly prepared by him against the accused. It is further stated that on the date of the incident the accused persons, including the co-accused, assaulted the non-

applicant No.2, when he refused to withdraw the complaint.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants Shri. R. S. Kurekar submits that the complaint is false an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top