Cri.Appln.5837/2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5837 OF 2016
1. Yogesh Namdev Kharat,
Age 36 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Shriram colony,
Behind power house, Sailu
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani
2. Namdeo Nathaji Kharat,
Age 65 years, Occu. Agri.,
Behind power house, Sailu
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani
3. Ashamati Namdev Kharat,
Age 60 years, Occu. Household,
Behind power house, Sailu
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani
4. Ashroba Raghoji Kale,
Age 60 years, Occu. Service,
r/o Sonna, Taluka Sailu,
District Parbhani .. Applicants
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Manwath Police Station, Manwath,
Taluka Manwath,
District Parbhani
2. Pradnya Yogesh Kharat,
Age 30 years, Occu. Housewife,
Panchavati colony, Manwath,
Taluka Manwath,
District Parbhani .. Respondents
Mr R.A. Nirmal, Advocate for applicants Mrs V.N. Patil Jadhav, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 Mr B.S. Bhale, Advocate for respondent no.2 CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND A.M. DHAVALE, JJ DATE : 14th September 2017 ::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 02:36:27 ::: Cri.Appln.5837/2016 2 ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Learned Counsel appearing for applicants seeks permission to withdraw the application of applicant no.1 Yogesh Namdev Kharat. Permission granted. Application of applicant no.1 Yogesh Namdev Kharat is dismissed as withdrawn.
2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, matter is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that if the allegations in the F.I.R. are taken at its face value and read in its entirety, the alleged offence is not disclosed. No specific date of the incident or specific incident has been quoted in the F.I.R. There are general and vague allegations. It is submitted that applicants no.1 and respondent no. 2 resided at Surat. Applicant no.4 is residing at village Sonna, Taluka Sailu, which is situated at considerable distance from Sailu. It is submitted that even the applicants no. 2 to 3 resided at Sailu. They are nothing to do with the allegations in the F.I.R. The sum and substance of the argument of the learned Counsel for the applicants is that there are no specific allegations in the F.I.R., which would constitute the alleged offence and, therefore, F.I.R. may be quashed.
4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submit that there are serious allegations in the F.I.R. and, therefore, at the stage of investigation, this Court may not accede to the prayer of the applicants for quashing ::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 02:36:27 ::: Cri.Appln.5837/2016 3 the F.I.R. Learned A.P.P. during the course of hearing submitted that in the statements of the witnesses no any specific date or incident has been mentioned. The contents of their statements are similar to the contents of the F.I.R.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants, learned A.P.P. for State and learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 at length.
6. This Court (Coram : S.S. Shinde and Sangitrao S. Patil, JJ) has already allowed the Criminal Application No.2970 of 2016 filed by the co-accused (Dipak Dagdu Pandit Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr.) by order dated 3rd October 2016. In paragraphs no.6 to 8, it is observed as follows :
"6. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, the learned A.P.P. appearing for respondent no.1 and the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2. With their able assistance, perused the averments in the application, annexures thereto and the allegations made in the F.I.R. So far a the present applicant, the allegations in the F.I.R. are as under :
"fnid nxMw iaMhr] uanbZ jk- jkenkl uxj ijHk.kh] vkJksck jk?kksth dkGs jk- lksUuk rk- lsyw ;kaps fo:/n fQ;kZn nsr vkgs rlsp usgeh eyk thos ekj.;kph /kedh nsr vkgs rjh eyk ojhy yksdkauh rq fnlk;yk cjkscj ukgh rqÖ;k oMhykauh yXukr oLrq fnY;k ukgh ?kj cka/kdkeklkBh ikp yk[k :i;s ?ksowu ;s ;k dkj.kko:u ekjgk.k d:u Vkspwu cksywu 'kkfjjhd o ekufld NG dsyk vkgs-"::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 02:36:27 :::
Cri.Appln.5837/2016 4
7. If the above referred allegations are perused carefully, it appears that neither any specific date nor any specific instance is mentioned. The said allegations are general in nature. The applicant is residing at Parbhani and serving as a Teacher. Therefore, keeping in view the parameters laid down in the case of State of Haryana and ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. are taken at their face value, no offence is disclosed against the applicant. As already observed, no specific instance or specific date is mentioned in the F.I.R.
8. Considering the overall material on record, in our view, the application deserves to be allowed."
9. For the same discussion and reasons, which are assigned in paragraphs no.6 to 8 reproduced herenin above, in the order dated 3 rd October 2016 passed in Criminal Application No.2970 of 2016 (Dipak Dagdu Pandit Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr.), we are inclined to allow the application of applicant no. 2 - Namdeo Nathaji Kharat, applicant no.3 - Ashamati Namdev Kharat and applicant no.4 - Ashroba Raghoji Kale.
10. Accordingly, Criminal Application filed by applicants no.2 to 4 is allowed. The F.I.R. in Crime No. 125 of 2016 registered with Manwath Police Station, Manwath, District Parbhani for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, so far as the applicants no.2 to 4 are concerned, is quashed and set set aside.
::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 02:36:27 :::
Cri.Appln.5837/2016 5
11. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no orders as to costs.
( A.M. DHAVALE, J.) ( S.S. SHINDE, J.)
vvr
::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 02:36:27 :::