Bombay High Court
Sudarshan S/O Shivaji Dhande And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 5 May, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
1 Cri.Appln.No.1435/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1435 OF 2016
1) Sudarshan s/o Shivaji Dhande
Age: 35 Yrs., occu. Agril.
R/o Dande Galli, Beed,
Tq. And Dist. Beed.
2) Somnath s/o Vinayak Dhande
Age: 38 Yrs., occu. Agril.
R/o Ganesh Nagar, Beed,
Tq. And Dist. Beed.
3) Ravindra s/o Dhondiram Kadam,
Age: 34 Yrs., occu. Agril.
R/o Ganpati Ngar, Beed,
Tq. And Dist. Beed.
4) Vaibhav s/o Dnyanoba Jagdale,
Age: 34 Yrs., occu. Agril.
R/o Ganpati Nagar, Beed,
Tq. And Dist. Beed.
5) Vinod s/o Ramkrushna Ingole,
Age: 38 Yrs., occu. Agril.
R/o Vidhya Nagar, Beed,
Tq. And Dist. Beed. - APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station, Beed
(City), Dist. Beed.
2) The Police Sub Inspector,
Police Station, Beed (City),
Shri Balbhim Kekshavrao Nalwade
Age: 55 Yrs., occu. Service,
R/o Police Station, Beed (City)
Beed, Tq. And Dist. Beed. - RESPONDENTS
*****
Mr. Sudarshan J.Salunke, Advocate for Applicants;
Mr. SJ Salgare, APP for State.
-----
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 01:03:58 :::
2 Cri.Appln.No.1435/2016
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
P.R.BORA,JJ.
DATE : 5
th
May, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER:- R.M.BORDE,J.)
1) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable
forthwith with consent of parties.
2)
The applicants are praying for quashment of
criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance to
lodging of FIR No.153/2006 dated 29.5.2006 at Police
Station Beed City for the offence punishable under
Section 135 of The Maharashtra Police Act, 1951(for
short, the said Act).
3) The offence under Section 135 of the
Maharashtra Police Act is punishable with
imprisonment for a term, which may extend to one year
but shall not, except for the reason to be recorded
in writing, be less than four months and shall also
be liable to fine. Sub-section (ii) of Section 135
of the said Act provides that if the said order was
made under sub-section (2) of Section 37, punishment
shall be with imprisonment for a term, which may
extend to one month or with fine which may extend to
Rupees two thousand five hundred and if the said
order was made under sub-section (3) of Section 37,
punishment shall be with fine, which may extend to
Rupees two thousand five hundred.
4) In the instant matter, there is an
allegation in respect of breach of the directives of
District Magistrate in terms of Section 37(1)(3) of
the said Act and as such, there is infringement of
section 133 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
5) In view of the punishment prescribed for the
aforesaid Act, Section 468 of Code of Criminal
Procedure (for short, the Code) provides for
limitation for taking cognizance of certance
offences. It is provided under the Code that no
Court shall take cognizance of an offence of a
category specified in sub-section (2) after expiry of
period of limitation. Sub-section (2) of section 468
provides period of limitation for one year if the
offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term
not exceeding one year.
6) In the instant matter, although the FIR has
been lodged in the year 2006, till the date of
presentation of the Criminal Application in the year
2016, no charge sheet was presented. As such, it can
safely be concluded that for about ten years no
cognizance is taken by the Court in respect of the
commission of the alleged offence. The trial in
respect of the offence registered against the
applicants cannot proceed in view of the specific bar
contained under Section 468 of the Code.
7) In view of the above, the instant Criminal
Application deserves to be allowed and the same is
accordingly allowed. The criminal proceedings,
initiated against the applicants and other accused,
pursuant to registration of FIR No.153/2006 dated
29.5.2006, registered with Police Station Beed City,
for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the
Maharashtra Police Act, shall stand quashed.
8) Rule is made absolute in above terms.
sd/- sd/-
(P.R.BORA) (R.M.BORDE)
JUDGE JUDGE
bdv/
