Lawyer Janhavi Gadkar, who in 2015 while working at Reliance Industries as an in-house lawyer killed two while allegedly driving drunk in Mumbai, will likely appear in court on 20 September when charges against her will be framed, reported the Times of India:

The charges against Gadkar include Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means, rash driving, causing grievous hurt, as well as sections of the Motor Vehicles Act. If convicted, she may have to serve at least seven years in jail.

The police had in August filed a 560-page chargesheet against Gadkar, including 57 witness statements, with lab tests having reportedly found 190ml of blood alcohol, which is six times the allowed limit.

Also read:

- Legally Explained: How to drink and drive and (not) get away with it.

- Being human: Janhavi Gadkar’s slow motion media car crash has made her a punching bag stand-in for a lakh others

Click to show 20 comments
at your own risk
(alt+shift+c)
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.
refresh Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments. Sort chronologically
1
Like +10 Object -0 Jai RUM 01 Sep 16, 20:59  interesting
Each Peg - One Year
Reply Report to LI
2
Show?
Like +7 Object -5 Name112 01 Sep 16, 22:14  controversial
Whats shocking is that she is back in Reliance!
Reply Report to LI
2.1
Show?
Like +1 Object -1 nikamma 05 Sep 16, 16:53
that woman had never left Reliance !
Reply Report to LI
3
Show?
Like +8 Object -36 Why o Why 02 Sep 16, 10:52  troll?  controversial
Leave her alone man. It was a mistake of day. She is repenting I am sure and will not repeat it. Was not wilful or bad intention. Let her be.
Reply Report to LI
3.1
Like +30 Object -2 wow 02 Sep 16, 11:20  interesting  top rated
Yes, people died. But as they say - "nothing personal"

Lets just let her be. Give her a beer may be.
Reply Report to LI
3.2
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 Kuch sharam karo 02 Sep 16, 11:53
Are you out of your mind!!Do you even realise what had happened?
Reply Report to LI
3.3
Like +14 Object -0 This guy 02 Sep 16, 15:12  interesting  top rated
This guy is ripe for DUI - drafting under influence as opposed to his muse who was driving under influence. Both are liable for DUI.
Reply Report to LI
3.4
Like +5 Object -0 wow 02 Sep 16, 21:14  interesting
this is the reply of the millenium. You repent, and you get away. wow !
Reply Report to LI
3.5
Show?
Like +3 Object -0 fgihzogfhoz 05 Sep 16, 11:49
You will make a great defense lawyer. Tell the courts - just let her be. So what if people died because of her breaking the law. Just let her be.
I am sure that she is repenting, but she also needs to face the consequences of her actions.
Reply Report to LI
4
Like +9 Object -1 Dazed and Confused 02 Sep 16, 14:46  interesting
Her approach to compliance evidently comports with standards at Reliance. But if law doesn't suit her any longer she can become a cricket commentator and "comedian" like Navjot Singh Sidhu. While Gadkar's body count is higher than Sidhu's, if the public will laugh at jokes from someone who beat a man to death with a hockey stick few will object if Gadkar sits quietly at her desk papering over Reliance's activities before heading out to happy hour.
Reply Report to LI
5
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 Reliance Pio 06 Sep 16, 11:51
The case will run for ages and she will get grey hair by the time final verdict comes. Relax folks !! Take it easy
Reply Report to LI
6
Show?
Like +1 Object -2 Ganja 08 Sep 16, 16:13
Even though I am against all forms for prohibition I feel time is ripe for alcohol to banned for a couple of years (maybe start with 3 years). We can discuss the economics of it later. Replace it with something far better and healthier ganja and bhang. Grow it(so no chance for it to be spiked) smoke it or drink it. So good for the whole family. On the point of this case I strongly feel that the Hotel owner who allowed a drunk guest to leave should also be held responsible for what happened. Principle of vicarious liability should be strictly applied in such cases.

I would call this a perfect trap as state allows sale of alcohol and then holds the one consuming it responsible for what happens next be it driving under influence of alcohol or an accident. Hilarious!!!!
Reply Report to LI
6.1
Show?
Like +2 Object -0 What nonsense 08 Sep 16, 17:04
Yeah, it was a case of drinking and driving. lets ban alcohol, and then cars too! the state is not responsible for the excesses of any person/s.
Reply Report to LI
6.1.1
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 Ganja 08 Sep 16, 17:33
Should the state be not held responsible for its own acts? of issuing licenses and collecting taxes on sale of alcohol.Does the state not do this? Hence consequently the state fails to have any jurisdiction over anyone as it benefits from the sale of alcohol. On the point of cars once the state accepts road tax and issues driving license, where were the men/women who work for the state, as in, it becomes the duty of the state to prevent a person under influence of alcohol from driving or the state should direct the hotel owners to not to allow a drunk person to leave until he/she is sober, as it was the state that issued the license to sell alcohol for it's financial benefit. If possible come out of the statist mentality and start thinking in equity. If u can't, never touch alcohol, but do smoke or drink ganja or bhang encourage others too & spread happiness and laughter.
Reply Report to LI
7
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Ganja 08 Sep 16, 17:54
I have not read the MLC of the accused. Drunk or not... I hope an application U/s. 395 CrPc is filed forthwith and what I just said is argued before BomHc. It's a serious Constitutional Argument. State has to be made accountable. No need to raise the issue in parliament for this point. Or is there?
Reply Report to LI
8
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Ganja 08 Sep 16, 18:53
No intention motive or mens rea on part of Jhanavi. Basics to secure conviction not fulfilled. Merely placing reliance on MLC NOT sufficenct(if she did have alcohol). She did what the state permitted. By her act state financially benefitted. Hence No question of conviction. Any proceeding against her needs to be quashed. State under constitutional obligation to heavily compensate both the parties. - Judgement delivered by Mr. Justice Smoking Ganja Drinking Bhang (full name).
Reply Report to LI
9
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 KnowTheTruth 04 Nov 16, 20:40
If the case results into conviction, this will be a landmark judgement in a country where high profile folks can get past the law by hiring top lawyers. Of course, we know that she has hired a top lawyer. It's a shame that she is still on reliance payroll- that talks about the ethics of this business house
Reply Report to LI
10
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 KnowTheTruth 20 Apr 17, 16:23
any updates on this case?
Reply Report to LI
10.1
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 kianganz 20 Apr 17, 16:29
Not that I've heard... Does anyone else know? Will see if can find out also.
Reply Report to LI
11
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 KnowTheTruth 13 Nov 17, 19:58
It is interesting that people have a short memory, and stop following an incident once it becomes old. No wonder we don't learn anything from past mistakes.
Reply Report to LI

refreshSort chronologically Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments.