1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5336 OF 2003
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5337 OF 2003
1.Manisha Manohar Gokhale,
Age 50 yrs. Occ.Housewife
2.Manohar Purshotam Gokhale,
Age 55 yrs. Occ. Nil.
Both Adults, an Indian
Inhabitants, residing at
Room No. B 14-15, Palanji
Sojpal Chawl,C.K.Bole Rd.,
Near D Silva High School,
Dadar, Bombay 400 028. ..Applicants.
versus
1.State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Sahakar
Nagar Police Station)
2.Smt.Vijaya P. Joshi,
Age : 71 yrs, Occ.Housewife,
R/o : Mangal Murthy Complex,
Flat No. 21, C Bldg., Pune-
Satara Rd, Dhankawadi,
Pune 411 043.
3.Smt. Mandakini M. Apte,
Age : 65 yrs.Occ.Housewife,
R/o : B/204, Manali Arcade,
Pune-Satara Rd, Near Padmawati
Bridge,
Pune 411 009.
4.Smt. Suman K. Phadnis,
Age : 51 yrs.Occ.Housewife,
R/o : 6/85, Jay-Hanuman Hsg.Soc.,
Suhas Rd., Vile-Parle (E),
Pune 400 057.
5.On behalf of all above complainants
The power of attorney holder and
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:07:14 :::
2
Complainant himself --
Shri Mahadeo Bhikaji Apte,
Age : 72 yrs. Occu.Retired,
Residing : same as complainant
no.2. ..Respondents
=====
Mr.A.S.Khandeparkar, Advocate for applicants.
Smt.A.A.Mane APP for State.
None present for respondent nos. 2 to 5.
=====
CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 25 th SEPTEMBER, 2009.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1.Both these criminal applications filed under
section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code are
being decided together in as much as they
arise out of the similar state of facts.
2.The applicants in both the applications have
come out with a case that they have been
falsely involved in criminal prosecutions
initiated by the respondent no.2 Smt. Vijaya
Joshi. The applicant in context of criminal
application no. 5337 of 2003 and the applicant
no.1 in the companion application is the real
sister of the respondent no.2 Smt.Vijaya
Joshi. They are in all four sisters and 2
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:07:14 :::
3
brothers. Their father has left certain
movable and immovable property at Velas,
Taluka Mandangad. The respondent no.2 and
other two sisters desired to initiate dispute
against their two brothers about the
properties of their father. Their father died
on 8th November 1970. The petitioner
Smt.Manisha initially had joined them. The
four sisters
ig jointly decided to initiate
proceedings to stake legal claim in respect of
their rights. They together prepared a power
of attorney. The remaining three sisters of
the applicant-Smt.Manisha called for a meeting
on 3rd December 2000 at Pune.
3.The husband of applicant-Smt. Manisha who is
applicant no.2 in criminal application No.
5336 of 2003, attended the said meeting. He
informed the other three sisters of applicant-
Smt.Manisha that he was instructed by her to
tell them that she was no more interested in
proceedings against the two brothers. He
informed them that she was not ready to file
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:07:14 :::
4
any proceeding against her two brothers. He
also told that she has withdrawn from the
common power of attorney which was in favour
of Mahadeo Bhikaji Apte to look after the
litigation on their behalf.
4.A notice was thereafter sent to applicant-Smt.
Manisha by the advocate of the other sisters.
It was alleged that she had attempted to
assist her
brothers in their illegal acts.
The notice sent by Mr. Madhukar Limaye,
Advocate, was replied on behalf of the
applicant-Smt.Manisha.
5.It is not necessary to elaborately set out the
tenor of the notice correspondence. It would
suffice the purpose to say that applicant-
Smt.Manisha informed her withdrawal from the
power of attorney executed in favour of the
Mahadeo Bhikaji Apte and also communicated
that she was not interested in any kind of
litigation with the brothers. Thereafter, the
respondent no.2 Vijaya Joshi instituted
private cases against the applicants. The
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:07:14 :::
5
complaint applications were referred bythe
learned judicial Magistrate for investigation
under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure
Code. On basis of the material gathered
during the course of investigation, two
separate chargesheets have been filed against
the applicants. In F.I.R. No.150/2002, the
applicant-Smt Manisha Gokhale, is shown as
accused no.3 alongwith her two brothers. The
charge against them is for offence punishable
under Sections 406, 420, 511, 507 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the
F.I.R. No. 151 of 2002, the charge against the
applicant Smt.Manisha and her husband
alongwith their advocate who had given reply
notice is for offences punishable under
Sections. 406, 417, 420, 511, 506, 503 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
6.Heard learned counsel Mr.Khandeparkar for the
applicants, and learned APP for the State.
Though, these applications were on board since
23rd September 2009 and have been heard since
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:07:14 :::
6
then, none has appeared for the respondent
nos. 2 to 5.
7.On going through the relevant material, it is
amply clear that there is absolutely no
scintilla of evidence on record to infer
complicity of the applicants in the context of
either of the charges leveled against them. In
fact, the stand of the applicant-Smt Manisha
was that, she did not wish to claim any share
in the property left by her deceased father.
The other three sisters cannot legally compel
her to join them in such property dispute
against their two brothers. So, whether she
had connived with her brothers or not, is of
no significance. The criminal cases are
instituted against the applicants without any
reason or rhyme. The applicants have not at
all misappropriated any part of the property
of complainant-Smt.Vijaya Joshi (respondent
no.2) nor they have dishonestly cheated her in
order to obtain any valuable property. These
are the classic examples as to how the process
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:07:14 :::
7
of criminal court is abused by the litigant.
In fact, the very act of the respondent no.2-
Smt.Vijaya Joshi to file complaint against the
learned advocate of the applicants is rather
indicative of impropriety. I am told that
learned advocate Shri Shashikant Dharwadkar is
not alive. He was joined as accused no.3 in
the context of F.I.R. No.151 of 2008. His
only act
was to reply the notice as per
instructions of the applicants. Had he been
alive, perhaps compensation could have been
granted to him. It is only because of the
relationship between the applicants and
respondent no.2 that I am not willing to grant
compensation which is likely to further strain
the relationship and make them bitter enimies
forever.
8. Considering the averments in the complaints
and the material gathered during the so called
investigation, it would transpire that the
applicants have not committed any offence as
such. The respondent no.2, has tried to
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:07:14 :::
8
stretch the act of the applicant-Smt.Manisha
in such a way that she is unnecessarily
harassed. Her only fault could be of turning
volte face and join the brothers instead of
other three sisters.
9.In this view of the matter, both the
applications are allowed. The criminal cases
against the applicants which were described
earlier and are pending on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate, are hereby quashed.
(V.R.KIN GAONKAR, J.)
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:07:14 :::