3 apl 1677.23.odt..odt

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1677 OF 2023

1.Dnyaneshwar s/o. Ganeshrao

Dhawale

Aged about 41 years,

Occupation :Serving as Police

Subscriber Inspector Presently

R/o Radha-Krishna Nagri, Behind

Vyanketesh Hotel,

Mangrulpir, District Washim

APPLICANT

// V E R S U S //

1. State of Maharashtra,

Through Police Station Officer,

Police Station, Awadhutwadi,

District Yavatmal

NON-APPLICANTS

2.Mrs. Bhimabai Govindrao Gadve

Age:- Major, R/o Gurunanak,

Nagar, Godhani Road, Yavatmal

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. R.M. Daga, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. N.B. Jawade, APP for non-applicant No.1 /State.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:- 12.02.2026

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON:- 18.02.2026

O R A L J U D G M E N T :

1. Heard. 2026:BHC-NAG:2840-DB

3 apl 1677.23.odt..odt

2

2. ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal with the consent

of learned counsel for the parties.

3. The present application is filed by the applicant for

quashing of the First Information Report in connection with crime

No.48/2021 registered with the non-applicant No.1-Police Station

Avadhutwadi District Yavatmal under Sections 302, 306, 166,

166-A, 167 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for

short, ‘IPC’) against the present applicant.

4. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the

application are as under:-

Deceased Vijay Govindrao Gadve died in suspicious

circumstances in the house of his in-laws situated at Dandekar Lay

Out, Yavatmal. On 26.06.2018 on the report of Dr. Sneha Mankar

attached to Criti Care, Yavatmal A.D. No.46/2018 was registered

at Police Station Awadhutwadi. During inquiry of the said A.D. the

postmortem of deceased Vijay was conducted and cause of death

was due to hanging. On 09.07.2018 mother of the deceased

Bhimabai Gadve lodged a report at Avadhutwadi Police Station

alleging that wife, in-laws of the deceased and her son have

committed murder of her son and therefore, offence under Section

3 apl 1677.23.odt..odt

3

302 of the IPC may be registered against the present applicant.

However, police authorities have not taken any action and

therefore, she preferred Writ Petition bearing No.202/2019

suspecting therein that her son was murdered. By order dated

13.01.2021, this Court after hearing the parties observed that

there is material available on record to make an inference that

Police Station Officer Avadhutwadi has sided with the suspects in

the present case and tried to ignore material facts or change the

circumstance which prima-facie led to carrying out investigation

for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC against

non-applicant Nos.3 to 6 therein.

5. The Division Bench of this Court in order dated

13.01.2021 directed the Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal to

appoint a Special Investigating Officer from Local Crime Branch,

Yavatmal to carry out further investigation in the matter and

further directed non-applicant No.1- Superintendent of Police

Yavatmal to register the offence under the relevant sections

against all suspects.

3 apl 1677.23.odt..odt

4

6. After the direction of this Court in Writ Petition

No.202/2019 the Crime No.48/2021 for the offence punishable

under Sections 302, 306, 166, 166-A and 167 of the IPC was

registered. After registration of the crime Investigating Officer

has recorded statement of mother of the deceased namely

Bhimabai Gadve and other relatives including Rupali Vinay

Wankhede.

7. The present applicant is the Police Officer, who have

carried out the investigation as to the AD No.46/2018 under

Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the basis of

the report lodged by Dr. Sneha Mankar, Criti Care Hospital,

Yavatmal by which she informed about the death of Vijay Gadve.

As such, A.D. was registered by Head Constable Narendera

Waghmare and immediately inquiry of the said marg had handed

over to Police Head Constable Satish Chaudhary. Thereafter the

said inquiry was also conducted by present applicant

Dhyaneshawar Ganeshrao Dhawale. As per the allegations of

mother of the deceased that present applicant has ignored the

material evidence while conducting the A.D. and not collected the

evidence during inquiry. He has not collected the rope which was

3 apl 1677.23.odt..odt

5

used in the commission of the crime. The picture was created that

deceased has committed suicide. However, it is suspected that in-

laws of the deceased have caused his death. It is alleged that it is

a duty of the present applicant to make an inquiry in the said

marg but he has intentionally not conducted spot panchanama to

ascertain whether deceased has committed suicide or whether

death of deceased is homicidal and also not collected the said

rope which was used either in the hanging or causing the death of

the deceased. On the basis of the said report police has registered

the crime against the present applicant who is also Police Officer

alleging that the present applicant has not obeyed the law and

committed an offence punishable under Sections 166, 166A, 167

read with 34 of the IPC.

8. Heard Mr. Daga, learned counsel for the applicant. He

invited my attention towards the previous orders passed by this

Court in Criminal Application No.1147/2022 and Criminal

Application No.17/2023 and submitted that in both these

applications, the applicants therein, who were the Police Officers

against whom the FIR is quashed. He submitted that the offence

under Sections 166 or 166-A would not attract against the present

3 apl 1677.23.odt..odt

6

applicant. Only role of the present applicant is that he conducted

investigation as to the marg and there is no disobedience of any

law by him which is requirement. He submitted that in view of

Section 166 of the IPC a public servant who disobeying law, with

intent to cause injury to any person is punishable under Section

166 of the IPC. Under Section 166-A is also not applicable as there

was no such directions which is disobeyed by the present applicant

and therefore, no prima-facie case is made out against him. In

view of that application deserves to be allowed.

9. Per contra learned APP strongly opposed the said

contention and submitted that the conduct of the present

applicant that he was under obligation to carry out the

investigation with due care and caution and while conducting the

marg inquiry it is his duty to ascertain whether there is

involvement of anybody in committing offence. He has not

conducted spot panchanama, not seized the relevant evidence

which was available immediately on the spot of incident. The

ingredient of the offence under Section 166 is that offender

should have done act being a “public servant”. Here applicant is a

public servant. Next ingredient is that public servant has acted

indisobedience any legal direction concerning the way in which he

3 apl 1677.23.odt..odt

7

should have conducted himself as such public servant. Learned

APP also invited my attention towards the orders passed by the

Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 202/2019 and

submitted that at this stage, there is some material against the

present applicant to show that he has not performed his duty with

utmost care and it is the duty of the police officer that he should

not leave back any suspicion if he suspected that any offence is

committed by anybody. The statements of the witnesses disclose

that the necessary evidence is not collected by him which is

sufficient to show that there is prima-facie material against him. In

view of that, application deserves to be rejected.

10. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the

record there is no dispute that the present applicant was the Police

Officer attached to Avadhutwadi Police Station at the relevant

time. There is no dispute that he has conducted the investigation

as to the marg report registered vide A.D. No.46/2018. He has not

allegedly collected the evidence when he visited the spot

immediately after the incident on receipt of the information from

doctor regarding the death of the deceased. The spot panchnama

which is on record shows that he has immediately visited the

3 apl 1677.23.odt..odt

8

alleged spot of incident and not collected the rope which was

either used in commission of crime or used for committing the

suicide. The record shows that earlier spot panchnama was drawn

by one Police Head Constable Satish Chaudhary being Superior

Officer of the said Police Station he was under obligation to verify

the same and conduct an inquiry as to the cause of death of the

deceased under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.

11. The mother of the deceased has approached to this

Court by filing Criminal Writ Petition No.202/2019. The order

passed by Division Bench of this Court on 13.01.2021 which is

reproduced as under:-

“2. Prima-facie, we find that there is available on record

material to make an inference that the Police Station

Officer Avadhutwadi, Yavatmal has sided with the

suspects in the present case and tried either to ignore

material evidence or change the circumstances, which has,

prima-facie, led to carrying out investigation for the

offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal

Code against respondent Nos. 3 to 6. At this stage itself, it

appears to us that this case goes beyond the stage of gross

negligence and it enters the arena of joining hands with

the accused persons in committing a serious crime in the

present case. Just three circumstances are enough to

support our conclusion. Document at page 27 is a

3 apl 1677.23.odt..odt

9

certificate issued by the doctor in-charge of casualty. It

shows that the patient was brought dead to the hospital.

The spot-panchanama however shows that the I.C.U. unit

of the hospital has been shown to be the spot of the

incident. Admittedly, even the Investigating Officer does

not deny that the hanging death had occurred in the

house of respondent Nos.3 to 6. The third one is that rope

by which the deceased hanged himself, according to the

own story of respondent Nos.3 to 6, has not been seized in

the present case”.

The Division Bench further in paragraph No.6 has

observed as under:-

“In the circumstances, we direct the Superintendent of

Police, Yavatmal- respondent No.1 to appoint a Special

Investigating Officer of competence from Local Crime

Branch, Yavatmal, who shall be carrying out the further

investigation in the matter. The Superintendent of

Police, Yavatmal- respondent No.1 to register the

offences under the relevant sections against all the

suspects in the present case including the first

Investigating Officer, who has prima-facie destroyed the

evidence and attempted to prepare false evidence.”

12. The Division Bench of this Court directed

Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal – respondent No.1 to submit

his report in this matter to Court.

The communication by Superintendent of Police,

Yavatmal dated 24.01.2021 shows that the present applicant was

attached to the Avadhutwadi Police Station and has investigated

3 apl 1677.23.odt..odt

10

the marg No.48/2021. Initial investigation of the said marg was

carried by Police Head Constable Satish Chaudhary. Dr. Sneha

Mankar has reported death of the deceased. Thereafter the said

Satish Chaudhary has visited the hospital and drawn the

panchnama at hospital showing the hospital as spot of incident.

In fact the deceased was brought dead in the hospital and

admittedly statements of the witnesses show that the deceased

died at the house of his in-laws. The statements of the witnesses

i.e. wife of the deceased Reshma mother-in-law of deceased

Chabubai and brother-in-law of deceased disclose that deceased

died at their house. Thereafter also despite present applicant has

recorded the statements of these witnesses and it revealed to him

alleged incident has taken placed at the house, he has not visited

the spot of incident and drawn the spot panchanama. Even

accepting the statements of the wife of the deceased and relatives

of the wife of the deceased that he has committed suicide at the

house of in-laws then also it was the duty of the present applicant

to visit the said spot of incident and ascertain the genuineness of

the contention of these witnesses and to recover the material

articles from the spot of incident but he has not taken any pains to

visit the said place and seized the rope which allegedly used by

3 apl 1677.23.odt..odt

11

the deceased for commission of suicide. The communication of P.I.

Avadhutwadi dated 24.07.2018 also shows that it was present

applicant who was Investigating Officer in respect of marg

No.46/2018. Thus, on the basis of the said material the Division

Bench of this Court has observed that there are circumstances to

infer that Police Station Officer, Avadhutwadi had attempted to

side the suspects in the present case and also tried to ignore the

material evidence or change the circumstances.

13. Being the applicant is the Police Officer and the

serious allegations are levelled against him the reference of the

observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar

Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others in arising out of SLP

No.9816/2023 is relevant wherein it is observed by the Hon’ble

Apex Court that “In the light of these serious allegations made

against no less than a senior police officer, an essential cog in the

machinery of law enforcement, the High Court ought not to have

taken a liberal view in the matter for the mere asking. Considering

the position held by the respondent, even if he was suspended

from service and the chargesheet had already been filed against

him, the possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and the

3 apl 1677.23.odt..odt

12

evidence was sufficiently high. That apart, grant of such relief to a

police officer facing allegations of manipulating the investigation

so as to favour an accused would send out a wrong signal in

society. It would be against public interest.

14. In the case of Pravat Chandra Mohanti vs. State of

Odisha and another reported in (2021) 3 SCC 521 wherein also it

is observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that in the event people

holding public officer abuse their position, it becomes a matter of

grave public concern. When the police is violators of the law

whose primary responsibility is to protect the law, the punishment

for such violation has to be proportionately stringent so as to have

effective deterrent effect and instil confidence in the society.

15. Thus, considering the role of the present applicant

who is Police Officer, appears to have disobeyed the law as he was

under obligation to carry the investigation with all fairness and

with due care with intent that no guilty person shall be escaped

and guilty person shall be protected and his primary responsibility

is to protect and uphold the law. But he has not taken care while

3 apl 1677.23.odt..odt

13

investigating the matter and there was no fairness on his part to

collect the all possible evidence. It may not be out of context to

remind that the motto of Maharashtra State Police is

“Sadrakshnaya Khalanighrahanaya” [“To Protect Good and To

Punish The Evil”] which needs to be respected. Those, who are

called upon to administer criminal law, must bear, in mind, that

they have a duty not merely to the individual accused before

them, but also to the State and to the community at large. Such

incidents involving police usually tend to deplete the confidence

in our criminal justice system much more than those incidents

involving private individuals. It must be remembered that while

considering the prayer of the present applicant it is to be kept in

mind that he has not performed his duty with a responsibility to

protect and uphold the law. The observation of the Division Bench

of this Court specially shows that the circumstances on record

from which inference can be drawn that Police Station Officer,

Avadhutwadi, Yavatmal has sided the suspects in the present case

and tried to ignore the material evidence and tried to change the

circumstances which at this stage is sufficient material to force the

present applicant to face the trial.

3 apl 1677.23.odt..odt

14

16. Though learned counsel for the applicant has placed

reliance on the orders passed by this Court in Criminal Application

No.1147/2022 and Criminal Application No.17/2023 but the role

of concerned applicants therein and the role of the present

applicant is completely different. To attract the offence

punishable under Section 166 of the IPC indispensable ingredient

of the offence under Section 166 of the IPC is that the offender

should have done the act “ being a public servant”. The next

ingredient close to its heels is that such public servant has acted

in disobedience of any legal directions concerning the way in

which he should have conducted himself as such public servant.

The applicant being an officer directed by law to carry out the

investigation in fair manner, in order to satisfy no offence is

committed by anybody and also to ascertain whether there is an

involvement of anybody in causing death of deceased or not.

Section 166-A of the Code would attract when a public servant

knowingly disobeys any direction of the law which prohibits for

requiring the attendance at any place, or knowingly disobeys to

the prejudice of any person or any other direction of the law or

fails to record any information given to him under sub section (1)

of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. Admittedly there are no directions to

3 apl 1677.23.odt..odt

15

the present applicant but he was under obligation to follow the

law. He was under directions to record the information or the

circumstance which is helpful to carry out the fair investigation

but he has not done so. While exercising the jurisdiction under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. it is necessary that the High Court should

not ordinarily embark upon an inquiry into whether there is

reliable evidence or not. The jurisdiction has to be exercised

sparingly, careful and with caution only when such exercise is

justified by the specific provisions Section 482 of the CrP.C itself.

Criminal proceeding can be said to be in abuse of process of Court,

to warrant intervention under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. when the

allegations in the FIR do not at all disclose any offence or there

are materials on record from which the Court can reasonably

arrive at a finding that the proceedings are in abuse of process of

Court.

17. In this case it appears that present applicant who was

the Investigating Officer investigating marg report. He recorded

various statements from which it reveals that alleged incident i.e.

death of the deceased is caused in the house of his in-laws.

Despite statements recorded by him and the fact reveal to him that

3 apl 1677.23.odt..odt

16

spot of incident is the house in law of the deceased, he has not

visited the said house, not drawn panchanama of the said house,

not collected incriminating evidence from the spot of incident is

sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 166 to show that

being public servant he disobeyed the law and caused the injury to

family members of the deceased. The offence under Section 166

of the IPC is prima-facie is made out against the present applicant.

18. By applying parameters laid down by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs.

Bhajanlal and others reported in 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court

Cases 335, where it is stated as under:-

“ (a) where the allegations made in the First Information

Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value

and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any

offence or make out a case against the accused;

(b) where the allegations in the First information

Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R.

do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an

investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the

Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the

purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in

the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support

of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence

and make out a case against the accused;

3 apl 1677.23.odt..odt

17

(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not

constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-

cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police

officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated

under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or

complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the

basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just

conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding

against the accused;

(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted

in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act

(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the

institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or

where there is a specific provision in the Code or the

concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the

grievance of the aggrieved party;

(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly

attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is

maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking

vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due

to private and personal grudge.

By applying the same to the facts of the present case,

this is not a fit case wherein the power under Section 482 of the

Cr.P.C./528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita can be exercised in

favour of the present applicant. Therefore, the application

deserves to be rejected.

19. Accordingly application is rejected

The criminal application stands disposed of

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)

manisha