Shaikh Shafiq Shaikh Farukh vs The State Of Maharashtra & Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 1934 Bom

                                           1               Cri.Appln.No.333/2016

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                           
                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.333 OF 2016 




                                                   
      Shaikh Shafiq Shaikh Farukh
      Age: 36 Yrs., occu. Business,
      R/o Raj Mohalla, Sailu,




                                                  
      Tq. Sailu, Dist. Parbhani.                         - APPLICANT

            VERSUS

      1)       The State of Maharashtra




                                       
               Through the Investigating Officer,
               Sailu Police Station, Sailu,
               District Osmanabad.
                             
      2)   Shaikh Rahimoddin Shaikh Issaq
           Age: 52 Yrs., occu. Business,
                            
           R/o Suraj Mohalla, Sailu,
           Tq. Sailu, Dist. Parbhani.       -  RESPONDENTS
                                       
                               *****
      Mr.Manish P.Tripathi, Advocate for Applicant;
      


      Mr.DR Kale,APP for State.
      Mr.AM Salok, Adv. for Respondent No.2.
   



                              -----
                                       CORAM :    R.M.BORDE &
                                                  P.R.BORA,JJ.

DATE :

27 th

April, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER:- R.M.BORDE,J.)

1) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith

with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for

the parties.

2) The applicant is praying for quashment of

F.I.R. lodged at police Station, Sailu, District

Parbhani on 30.12.2014 under Sections 324, 323, 504,

506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It

is alleged that on the given date and time, the

accused came to him and beaten the complainant with

fists and blow. On the basis of the complaint,

initially, an entry in respect of commission of non-

cognizable offence was taken by the police bearing

Entry No.31/2015 on 13.11.2015 at 19.55 hrs.

However, the police appears to have recorded the FIR

adding Section 324 of IPC.

3) On perusal of the FIR as well as upon

consideration of the statements of the witnesses,

ingredients of Section 324 of IPC are not attracted.

Neither the complainant nor any of the witnesses has

alleged to have used a sharp weapon or even a stick

while committing the alleged crime. The provisions

of section 324 of IPC are not at all attracted in

this matter. The police authorities were justified

in initially taking the entry in respect of non-

cognizable offence. However, it appears that in

order to escape from the mandate of securing

permission from the Court to investigate the non-

cognizable offence, Section 324 of IPC appears to

have been added. The action of the police, prima

facie, appears to be malafide.

4) In the facts of the case, the registration

of the alleged crime against the applicant for

commission of the non-cognizable offence is not at

all warranted. The FIR registered on 30.12.2015 and

initiation of the criminal proceedings pursuant

thereto, are quashed and set aside.

5) As has been recorded above, the Police have

registered the non-cognizable case against the

accused, it would be open for the complainant to

adopt appropriate course in accordance with the

provisions of law.

6) Rule is made absolute in above terms. No

order as to costs.

              sd/-                       sd/-
            (P.R.BORA)                (R.M.BORDE)
              JUDGE                      JUDGE
                                    
                                

      bdv/