RAMESH KISANRAO SONAWANE AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                   Supriya                                                           WP-2553-2022.doc
                                                            S




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


SUPRIYA
                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 2553 OF 2022
PRAMOD
JAWARE
Digitally signed
by SUPRIYA
PRAMOD
                   1. Dr. Ramesh Kisanrao Sonawane
JAWARE
Date: 2026.09.22
17:45:49 +0530
                      Age : 65 years, Occ : Medical Practitioner,

                   2. Mr. Bhushan Ramesh Sonawane
                      Age : 32 years, Occ : Medical Practitioner,

                   3. Mr. Harshal Ashok Sonawane
                      Age : 35 years, Occ : Service,
                      All R/at : Kirti Nagar, Dharmveer
                      Sambhaji Bank, Navi Sanghavi,
                      Talegaon-Dabhade,
                      Pimpri-Chinchwad, Pune
                                                                            … Petitioners
                                                                (Original Accused Nos. 1 to 3)
                             V/s.

                   1. The State of Maharashtra
                      (Police Inspector, Talegaon-Dabhade
                       Police Station, Pune)

                   2. Dattatray Eknath Waware
                      Age : 28 years, Occ : Agriculturist
                      R/at: Naygaon, Post. Kamshet
                      Tal. Maval, Dist. Pune.
                                                                            … Respondents
                                              ______________________

                   Mr. Vikas Shivarkar for the Petitioners.
                   Mrs. Megha Bajoria, A.P.P. for Respondent -State.
                   Mr. Dhammaraj Shejul along with Ms. Pratiksha More, Ms. Neha Blani for
                   Respondent No.2.
                   Ms. Uma Gawade, API, Talegaon Dabhade is present.
                                               ______________________
                                              CORAM : RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.
                                       RESERVED ON : 13th JULY 2026
                                    PRONOUNCED ON : 22nd SEPTEMBER 2026.

                                                                                              1/9
Supriya                                                          WP-2553-2022.doc


JUDGMENT :-

1)          By the present Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,

‘CrPC’) (now 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the

Petitioners seek to quash and set aside FIR bearing No. 245 of 2021 dated 24 th

June 2021 registered with Talegaon Dabhade Police Station, Pune, under

sections 308, 336, 504, 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for

short, ‘IPC’) and the resultant charge-sheet.

2)          Heard Mr. Vikas Shivarkar, learned Advocate for the Petitioners,

Mrs. Megha Bajoria, A.P.P for Respondent-State. Mr. Dhammaraj Shejul,

learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.

3)          The facts as alleged in the FIR are as under:

3.1)        On 22nd July 2020 at about 11.30 p.m., Respondent No.2 and his

wife were sitting on a bench outside the ICU ward of Sai Jeevan Hospital. At

that time, three unknown persons came to the ICU and were shouting. The

said persons asked Respondent No.2 as to who he was and what he was doing

outside the ward. Respondent No.2 was abused and threatened. Respondent

No.2 informed the said persons that, his child was serious and admitted in the

ICU of the hospital, and therefore, he was waiting outside the ICU. At that

time, the said persons told Respondent No.2 to take the child from the

hospital and contended that it was their hospital. That, Respondent No.2

pleaded that being night time he could not take his child away from the


                                                                          2/9
Supriya                                                              WP-2553-2022.doc


hospital. The said persons threatened him that, if he does not take his child

from the hospital, they will close the oxygen supply. The said persons stated

that, if child dies, Dr. Mahendra Chavan will learn lesson and will be

humiliated in the public. The said persons allegedly turned off the oxygen

supply to the ICU. That, the said persons started abusing Dr. Mahendra

Chavan. On hearing the commotion, the hospital staff, and doctors including

Dr. Mahendra Chavan came to the ICU ward. Out of the three persons, two

people assaulted Dr. Mahendra Chavan and threatened that, they will not

spare him and kill him. The nurses came out from the ICU ward and they

started the oxygen supply. The nurses informed Respondent No.2 that his

child’s health had deteriorated. When Respondent No.2 and his wife went in

the ICU to see their child, the child was not normal and appeared to be

uncomfortable. They immediately went to call Doctor.

3.2)         There was a lot of commotion outside the ICU ward and a lot of

people had gathered. Out of the three persons, one person was shouting

loudly and threatened Dr. Mahendra Chavan. They threatened Dr. Mahendra

Chavan that, they will come back, cause destruction in the hospital and will

not bother even if the patient’s life is at risk or if any patient looses his life.

They threatened to kill Dr. Chavan. They threatened Dr. Chavan that they will

ensure that the hospital is shut down.

3.3)         After giving threats the said persons went away. After the persons

went away Dr. Chavan immediately came to the ICU and treated the child of


                                                                              3/9
Supriya                                                          WP-2553-2022.doc


Respondent No.2. At that time, Respondent No.2 was informed that, the

persons who created the ruckus were relatives of Dr. Chavan inasmuch as Dr.

Ramesh Sonawane was his father-in-law, Dr. Bhushan Sonawane, was his

brother-in-law and Harshal Sonawane was the nephew. On the aforesaid basis,

the present FIR was filed. The Respondent No.2 has explained the delay. That,

due to the entire incident he was mentally disturbed and at the same time the

treatment of his child was on going. That, after discussing the issue with his

wife and father he has filed the FIR.

4)           Mr. Vikas Shivarkar, learned Advocate appearing for the

Petitioners submits that:-

4.1)         Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are medical practitioners and belong to a

reputed family. They have unfortunately been dragged into the present

litigation by the Mr. Mahendra Chavan, son in law of Petitioner No.1. who is

also medical practitioner. The hospital in which the incident took place was

constructed by Petitioner No.1 and gifted to his daughter Nilima and her

husband Mahendra Chavan/ Respondent No.2 out of love and affection.

4.2)         There are certain matrimonial disputes between Dr. Nilima and

Dr. Mahendra Chavan. The real dispute is in respect of the control and

ownership of the said hospital. The present FIR as also the FIR bearing No.

360 of 2020 registered with the Talegaon Dabhade Police Station are all off

shoots of the said disputes between Dr. Nilima and her husband Dr. Mahendra

Chavan in respect of the control of the hospital.


                                                                          4/9
Supriya                                                           WP-2553-2022.doc


4.3)        On 22nd July 2020, daughter and son of Dr. Nilima Chavan were

having fever and unwell. Dr. Nilima is herself a patient of hypertension. That,

the electricity of the lift of the hospital was disconnected by Dr. Mahendra

Chavan. In the aforesaid facts the Dr. Nilima Chavan was constraint to call

Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. The Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 took the necessary

medicines and thermometer etc., from their hospital at Sangavi and rushed to

the Sai Jeevan Hospital where Dr. Nilima Chavan resides with her children.

The Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 checked the children and gave them required

medicines. Dr. Mahendra Chavan took disadvantage of the entry of the

Petitioner in the said premises and lodged an NC against the Petitioners.

4.4)        Dr. Mahendra Chavan had filed a private complaint under Section

304, 323, 427, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said private

complaint, the Court of the JMFC was pleased to reject the prayer for

investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure but

granted liberty to Dr. Mahendra Chavan to proceed under Section 200 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. The said Order was passed on 10 th September

2020. On 6th March 2021, Dr. Mahendra Chavan was directed by the Court to

produce his witnesses for examination. That, there has been no progress in the

said criminal proceedings.

4.5)        Thereafter, Dr. Mahendra Chavan instigated Respondent No.2 to

register the FIR. Due to the said instigation, the Respondent has registered the

present FIR on 24th June 2021 in respect of an offence which took place on


                                                                            5/9
Supriya                                                            WP-2553-2022.doc


22nd July 2020. The aforesaid facts clearly indicate that, the FIR is nothing but

an attempt to harass and arm twist the Petitioners and Dr. Nilima Chavan in

giving in to the illegal demands of Dr. Mahendra Chavan.

4.6)        The clinical notes in respect of the son of Respondent No.2 would

clearly indicate that, the condition of Respondent No.2’s son was normal.

Saturation levels of Respondent No.2’s son were consistent and normal even

at the time when the allegation of closing the oxygen supply is made. The

admission papers/hospital record do not indicate or corroborate the fact that,

the oxygen supply was shut down.

5)          Mrs. Megha Bajoria, learned APP appearing for the Respondent-

State submits that, the statement of the watchmen and nurses have been

recorded which form part of the charge-sheet. The statements of the eye

witnesses, if perused, clearly make out an offence against the Petitioners.

That, a prima facie offence has been made out. Photographs have been

annexed in the record which have the timing and the date. The presence of

the Petitioners at the hospital cannot be disputed. That, what the Petitioners

have raised are their defences and the same need to be tested at the trial.

6)          Mr.    Dhammaraj Shejul, learned Advocate appearing for the

Respondent No.2 submits that, there are specific allegations against the

Petitioners. That, apart from the allegations of abuse, assault and threats,

there are serious allegations of closing the oxygen supply to the ICU wherein

serious patients including son of Respondent No.2 were admitted. The


                                                                              6/9
Supriya                                                              WP-2553-2022.doc


employees of the said hospital have witnessed the entire incident. A specific

role attributed to the said persons. The allegations in respect of the offences as

alleged has been clearly made out. In the present case charge-sheet has been

filed.

7)           Perused the entire record. Perusal of the record indicates that, the

allegations made by Respondent No.2 are prima facie made out. The

Respondent No.2 has named the Petitioners only after being informed of the

names by Dr. Mahendra Chavan. It is a matter of record that, the son of

Respondent No.2 was admitted in the ICU at the relevant time. The

chargesheet has been filed which has statements of various witnesses

including nurses, hospital staff and the watchmen of the hospital.

7.1)         The perusal of the charge-sheet would further indicate that, the

prima facie presence of the Petitioners cannot be disputed. As regards the

delay is concerned, the Respondent No.2 has given an explanation for the

delay. It is not a case where, the delay is totally unexplained. The question

whether the explanation offered by Respondent No.2 is plausible or not is a

question which can be raised and tested at the trial.

8)           There is prima facie enough material on record in the form of the

statements to make out the offence against the Petitioners. In my considered

view, what the Petitioners have raised are all their defences which have to be

tried and tested in the trial. The Court while exercising the jurisdiction and

power under Section 482 of the CrPC cannot consider the defences or


                                                                              7/9
Supriya                                                             WP-2553-2022.doc


minutely evaluate the evidence. From the facts of the present case, it cannot

be said that no case is at all made out against the Petitioners. In fact, I find

that there is material on record in the form of statements of witnesses which

prima facie implicate Petitioners in the said offence.

9)           It is settled law that, in proceedings under Section 482 of the

CrPC, this Court is not required to conduct a mini trial or get into the nitty-

gritties of the evidence. What the Petitioners raised are all their defences. This

Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC cannot enter

into the arena of evidence or minutely scrutinize the evidence on record. A

useful reference to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Sing h reported in (2023) 18 SCC

399 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that while

considering the Application under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Court cannot

conduct a mini trial.

10)          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Manik B. V/s. Kadapala

Sreyes Reddy & Anr., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine 2540 has held that, the

Court would exercise its power to quash a proceeding under Section 482 of

the CrPC only if it finds that taking the case at its face value no case is at all

made out. Considering the scope and ambit of Section 482 of the CrPC, and

the facts of the present case it would not be permissible for this Court to go

into the correctness or otherwise of the material placed by the prosecution in

a chargesheet. The submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner across


                                                                             8/9
Supriya                                                            WP-2553-2022.doc


the bar are all in fact the defences of the Petitioners.

11)          In my considered opinion, the facts of case do not make out a

cause to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 of

the CrPC. In my opinion, the allegation in the FIR make out a prima facie case

against the Petitioners. The Petitioners have the liberty to raise their defences

at the trial during the cross examination or by examining their own defence

witnesses.

12)          In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and after

considering the law as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the

opinion that, the Petitioners have not made out any case for exercising the

powers under Section 482 of the CrPC.

13)          In view thereof, the Petition is dismissed.



                                        (RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.)




                                                                            9/9