VAMAN NARAYAN GHODE Vs. OFFICER IN CHARGE & ANR.
LAWS(BOM)-2017-10-21
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: PANAJI)
Decided on October 03,2017

Vaman Narayan Ghode Appellant
VERSUS
Officer In Charge And Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

NUTAN D.SARDESSAI,J. - (1.) Heard Shri H. Arsekar, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Shri S.R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.1 and Shri R. Menezes, learned Advocate for the respondent no.2-original complainant.
(2.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Shri S.R.Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of the respondent no.1 and Shri R. Menezes, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondent no.2.
(3.) Shri H. Arsekar, learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the respondent no.2 apparently at the instance of her husband and supported by his other daughter and her husband were motivated by greed and precipitated the FIR against him. He had lost his wife on 7.5.2012 and since then he was surviving on his own and totally dependent on his belongings and assets which he had collected during his lifetime. The respondent no.2 alongwith her sister Veena had filed a Suit for injunction before the Civil Judge Junior Division at Margao against the petitioner and his third daughter Vibha Naik and son-in-law alleging that upon the death of his wife, they had succeeded to the movable and immovable properties of their late mother which were acquired by her during her lifetime and that the petitioner was intending to dispose off the estate. The respondent no.2 and her sister Veena had even gone to the extent of making allegations against the petitioner that he alongwith his elder daughter Vibha and son-in-law had dishonestly removed the gold lying in the bank locker of the petitioner. The Civil Court had not granted any ad-interim relief in favour of the respondent no.2 and preferred an appeal before the District Court, Margao which was dismissed by the order dated 3.10.2013. The respondent no.2 not being successful in causing harassment to the petitioner had filed the complaint dated 9.11.2013 against the petitioner as also against his elder daughter Vibha and the respondent no.1 without the application of mind had registered an FIR against the petitioner, his elder daughter and the son-in-law.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.