PARVATI W/O MADHAV JANTINE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:40375-DB




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                            CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 96 OF 2024

           1.    Madhav Ragunath Jantine
           2.    Parvati W/o Madhav Jantine
           3.    Gavalanbai D/o Tulsiram Jantine
           4.    Shivaraj S/o Tulsiram Jantine…………………. Petitioners

           Versus

           1.    The State of Maharashtra
           2.    Vitthal S/o Ragunath Jantine
           3.    Ghungarabai W/o Vitthal Jantine
           4.    Balaji Tulsiram Jantine…………………………. Respondents

           Mr. P. V. Bodhke-Patil, Advocate for Petitioner
           Mr. A. R. Kale, APP for Respondent/State
           Mr. K. P. Rodge, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 to 4

                                                      CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                                      DATED : 27th AUGUST, 2026

           PER COURT :-

           1.    This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the present

           petitioners seeks quashment of Crime in FIR No. 0145 of 2022 registered with

           Jalkot Police Station, Latur for the offences punishable Under Section 307,

           326, 324, 452, 504 and 506 read with 34 of IPC, so also seeks quashment of

           RCC NO. 156 of 2023 pending before JMFC, Udgir.

           2.    It is the case of the prosecution that complainant/Respondent No.2-

           Vitthal Raghunath Jantine and Petitioner No.1 are real brothers residing in

           adjacent premises at Mouje Ghonsi, Jalkot, District Latur. Petitioner Nos. 2, 3

                                                                                     1 of 6
and 4 are the wife, daughter-in-law, and grandson of Petitioner No. 1,

respectively. On 28/05/2022 at around 2:00 PM, while Petitioner No. 1 was

undertaking construction/repair work on his terrace to prevent water

percolation, an argument ignited when the complainant requested Petitioner

No. 1 to restrict the work strictly to his own share and avoid encroaching

upon the complainant's property. This objection prompted Petitioner No. 1 to

hurl verbal abuses against the complainant/Respondent No.2 and his family

members, namely, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

3.    It is alleged that immediately following the altercation, Petitioner No. 1

and 4, shared the common intention to assault and fatally injure the

complainant, unlawfully trespassed into his residential house. Petitioner No. 1

struck the Respondent No.2 on the head with a stone, inflicting severe

injuries. Concurrently, Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 dragged the complainant’s

wife-Respondent No.3, Ghungarbai, by her hair and subjected her to physical

assault using kicks and punches, causing blunt injuries to her right thigh.

When the complainant’s son-Respondent No.3, Balaji, attempted to intervene,

Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 assaulted and kicked him. The incident was brought to

a halt only after local villagers, including Ramkishan Waghmare, along with

working masons, intervened to rescue the victims, whereupon the Petitioners

fled the scene while issuing life threats.


                                                                          2 of 6
4.    It's the further case that subsequent to the incident, the Respondent

No.2 approached Police Station, Jalkot, however, the police registered merely

a Non-Cognizable Report. Representations submitted to the Superintendent of

Police, Latur, on 03/06/2022 bore no result, and a counter-case came to be

registered by present Petitioner (Crime Reg. No. 90/2022 under Sections 324,

354, 323, 34 of I.P.C.) against the complainant's family. Aggrieved by police

inaction and the non-furnishing of medical reports despite an RTI application,

the complainant instituted a private complaint (Cri. Application No.

302/2022) before the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate First Class, Udgir, seeking

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

which directions were issued for further investigation and the present crime

was lodged and chargesheet came to be filed.

5.    The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that this is a case of

deliberate implication in order to settle personal vendetta by Respondent No.2

who is the real brother of Petitioner No.1. By drawing the attention of the

court to record, it is further argued that by far stretch of imagination, it

cannot be said that offenses as alleged are made out on bare perusal of FIR as

well as Chargesheet, so also the medical evidence indicates that all the

injuries are simple in nature. There is no evidence indicating intention to kill

informant or in order to attract Section 307 of IPC. The learned counsel


                                                                          3 of 6
further contends that an FIR was filed in respect of alleged incident by the

present Petitioner on 28/05/2022 which is prior in point of time disclosing

the actual occurrence of the incident which shows that in reality it was the

Respondent who ignited the scuffle which led to a heinous fight between

them, so also an non cognizable Report was filed in as an attempt to

counterblast apart from the present proceedings.

6.    The learned APP and Learned Counsel for Respondents oppose grant of

any relief to present Petitioner. Its contended that there are specific

allegations against the present Petitioner starting a scuffle, hurling verbal

abuses and grievously assaulting the Respondents with intention to kill him.

To substantiate the above, the attention of the court is drawn to medical

evidence on record to substantiate the injuries suffered by Respondent which

satisfies the elements of section 307 and 326 of IPC. It is further contended

that a subsequent NCR was registered by the Respondents which depicts the

actual occurrence so also the present crime lodged shows the incident being

ignited by the present Petitioner.

7.    It is undisputed from the record that on 28/05/2022 an argument took

place where abuses were hurled by the present Petitioners to the respondents

which further aggrevated when the present Petitioners entered the house of

the Respondents and caused assault upon the Respondents. It's further


                                                                        4 of 6
evident that an Non Cognizable Report was registered by the present

Respondent. Thereafter, an application was made by the present Respondents

to learned Magistrate whereby directions were issued under section 156(3) of

CrPC for registration of FIR.

8.    In so far as specific allegations attributable to the present Petitioners of

they causing assault on the respondents are concerned, the perusal of the

record shows that Petitioner No.1 assaulted the Respondent No.2 by hitting

him with a stone on his head. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 dragged the Respondent

No.3 down by pulling her hair, so also caused assault by kicks and punches

which resulted in blunt injury on her right thigh. Petitioner No.4 verbally

abused and kicked the Respondent No.4 on his private parts, so also Petitioner

No.3 assaulted him with kick and punch blows. On further perusal, it can be

seen from the medical reports that all injuries inflicted on Respondent No.2

are simple injuries caused with hard and blunt object/weapon. Injuries

inflicted on Respondent No.3 are are simple injuries and injuries inflicted on

Respondent No.4 are simple injuries caused on his groin area. Thus, it can be

seen from from the above that as far as the argument that the injuries caused

are simple in nature and would not attract provision of Section 307 of IPC.

9.    Thus, even if evidence of prosecution is accepted as it is to be true, in so

far as offence under section 307 of IPC is concerned, it cannot be said that


                                                                            5 of 6
offence under section 307 of IPC is made out against the Petitioners, since the

intention/attempt to kill is missing. However, with regard to the offences

under Section 324 or 326 of IPC, whether applicable or not, would be the

matter to be decided at the trial. By far stretch of imagination, it cannot be

said that injuries sustained were dangerous to life, so also the offence under

section 307 cannot be said to be made out.

10.      In view of the above discussion and perusal of evidence collected

during the course of investigation including the medical reports, prima facie,

do not support framing of charge-sheet against the Petitioners for the offence

punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. As such, the chargesheet filed

under section 307 of IPC cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.

11.      Hence, the application stands partly allowed. The proceeding is

quashed to the extent of offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. It

is open for trial Court to try the Petitioners for other offences.

12.      It is clarified that above observations are prima facie in nature and shall

not prejudice the parties during the course of trial.



                                                         ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani




                                                                              6 of 6