Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Order Date: 22 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners – Dr. Ramesh Kisanrao Sonawane (age 65, Medical Practitioner), Dr. Bhushan Ramesh Sonawane (age 32, Medical Practitioner), Harshal Ashok Sonawane (age 35, Service) – all residing at Kirti Nagar, Dharmveer Sambhaji Bank, Navi Sanghavi, Talegaon‑Dabhade, Pimpri‑Chinchwad, Pune. Respondents – State of Maharashtra (Police Inspector, Talegaon‑Dabhade Police Station, Pune) and Dattatray Eknath Waware (age 28, Agriculturist, Naygaon, Post Kamshet, Tal Maval, Dist Pune).
  • Petition: Writ petition No. 2553 of 2022 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) seeking quash of FIR No. 245 of 2021 dated 24 June 2021, registered at Talegaon‑Dabhade Police Station, Pune, under IPC sections 308, 336, 504, 506 read with section 34.
  • Incident Alleged in FIR: On 22 July 2020 at ~11:30 p.m., Dattatray Waware (Respondent No.2) and his wife were waiting outside the ICU of Sai Jeevan Hospital. Three unknown persons approached, threatened Waware, demanded he remove his child from the ICU, and allegedly turned off the ICU oxygen supply, assaulting Dr. Mahendra Chavan and threatening his life. Nurses later restored oxygen. The child’s condition deteriorated, prompting Waware to seek medical help.
  • Family Relations: The three alleged assailants were identified as relatives of Dr. Mahendra Chavan – Dr. Ramesh Sonawane (father‑in‑law), Dr. Bhushan Sonawane (brother‑in‑law), and Harshal Sonawane (nephew). The hospital was constructed by Dr. Ramesh Sonawane and gifted to his daughter Dr. Nilima and her husband Dr. Mahendra Chavan.
  • Background Dispute: Petitioners allege the FIR stems from a matrimonial and ownership dispute between Dr. Nilima Chavan and her husband Dr. Mahendra Chavan over control of the hospital. They contend that earlier FIR No. 360 of 2020 and the present FIR are off‑shoots of this family dispute.
  • Additional Proceedings: Dr. Mahendra Chavan filed a private complaint under sections 304, 323, 427, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC. The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) on 10 September 2020 rejected investigation under Section 156(3) but allowed proceedings under Section 200. On 6 March 2021, the court directed Dr. Chavan to produce witnesses; no further progress reported.
  • Petitioners’ Arguments: Claim harassment, lack of genuine offence, clinical notes showing the child’s oxygen saturation was normal, and no evidence of oxygen supply being shut.
  • Respondent‑State’s Position: Statements of watchmen, nurses, and eye‑witnesses recorded in the charge‑sheet establish a prima facie offence; photographs corroborate timing; presence of petitioners at the hospital is undisputed.
  • Respondent No.2’s Position: Emphasises specific allegations of assault, threats, and alleged oxygen shut‑off witnessed by hospital employees.

Court’s Reasoning

  • The Court examined the charge‑sheet and found prima facie material implicating the petitioners, including witness statements and photographs.
  • It noted that the petitioners’ defenses are matters for trial and cannot be adjudicated under Section 482, which does not permit a “mini‑trial.”
  • Citing Supreme Court precedents (CBI v. Aryan Singh, 2023 SCC 399; Manik B. v. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy, 2023 SCC OnLine 2540), the Court held that Section 482 can only be invoked when no case is made out on its face, which is not the situation here.
  • The Court concluded that the FIR makes out a prima facie case; therefore, the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 cannot be exercised to quash the proceedings.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed. The FIR 245/2021 and the accompanying charge‑sheet remain in force, and the petitioners must raise any defenses during the regular trial.

Topics: Legal Proceedings, Criminal Procedure