Bombay High Court
Yogesh S/O Prabhakar Chaudhari ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 11 April, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 wp1007.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1007 OF 2015
1. Yogesh s/o.Prabhakar Chaudhari,
Aged 32 years, Occ. Service,
r/o. Shivaji Nagar, Gangabai Ghat
Road, Nagpur, Tq. and Distt.
Nagpur.
2. Pradip s/o. Bhagavan Dahivale,
Aged 52 years, Occ. Service,
r/o. Quarter No.A/4, Gorewada,
Water Work Colony, Nagpur,
Tah. and Distt. Nagpur.
3. Atul s/o. Pradip Dahivale,
Aged 29 years, Occ. Student,
r/o. Quarter No.A/4, Gorewada
Wire Work Colony, Gittikhadan,
Nagpur.
4. Nitin s/o.Parasram Raut,
Aged 27 yrs., Occ. Private Job,
r/o. Shivaji Nagar, Gangabai
Ghat Road, Nagpur.
5. Sanjay s/o.Yuvraj Sambhare,
Aged 37 yrs., Occ. Business,
r/o. Shivaji Nagar, Gangabai
Ghat Road, Nagpur. ........ PETITIONERS
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:51:25 :::
2 wp1007.15.odt
// VERSUS //
1.State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Gittikhadan, Tah.
and Distt. Nagpur.
2. Superintendent of Police,
Nagpur, Tah. and Distt. Nagpur.
3. Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Gittikhadan, Tah.
and Distt. Nagpur.
4. Priti d/o. Vasantrao Thorat,
r/o. 1/A/5, Old Quarter, Police Line
Takali, Gittikhadan, Tah. and Distt.
Nagpur. ........ RESPONDENTS
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mrs.S.P.Giratkar, Adv. for the petitioners.
Mr.M.J.Khan, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr.R.M.Mardikar, Adv. for Respondent No.4.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 11.4.2016.
3 wp1007.15.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B. R. Gavai, J) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.
2. By way of present petition, the petitioner prays for
quashing and setting aside First Information Report dt.22.11.2015
registered vide Crime No.543 of 2015 at Police Station, Gittikhadan
for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w. 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. Perusal of the F.I.R. would reveal that respondent no.4 has
alleged therein that her marriage was arranged with petitioner no.1.
It is her allegation that when she was working as a Police Constable
at the Police Headquarters, one Shashikant Verma, who was working
as an Assistant Police Inspector, was indulged in the business of
money lending. It is further alleged that she used to assist said
Shashikant Verma in the business of money lending and as such,
there were telephonic conversations between her and said Shashikant
Verma. It is further alleged that huge expenses were incurred on the
engagement ceremony and also for the marriage ceremony by her
parents, which was scheduled to be held on 22.11.2015. However, on
4 wp1007.15.odt
20.11.2015, the wife of said Shashikant Verma namely Dileshwari
Verma, showing the call detail report of mobile conversations
between respondent no.4 and said Shashikant Verma, made false
allegations against her character, due to which the marriage
scheduled on 22.11.2015 came to be cancelled by present petitioner
no.1.
4. It could thus be seen that, even taking the allegation in the
F.I.R. at it's face value, no ingredients to constitute an offence
punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are made out.
There is no allegation as to how any of the petitioners have induced
respondent no.4 to deliver the property to any of the petitioners.
5. Insofar as rest of the petitioners except petitioner no.1 are
concerned, there is not even a whisper with regard to their role in the
alleged crime. The only role attributed to them is that the rest of the
petitioners were also informed about the character of respondent
no.4 by said Dileshwari w/o. Shashikant Verma.
6. In that view of the matter, we find that continuation of
criminal proceedings against the present petitioners is nothing but an
5 wp1007.15.odt
abuse of process of law. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of
prayer clause (A) of the present Writ Petition. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
jaiswal
