Bombay High Court
Sanjay S/O. Laxmanrao Kadam And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 25 November, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
{1}
5 sr. no..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 229 OF 2016
1] Sanjay s/o. Laxmanrao Kadam.
Age 48 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Munshi Plot, Ekundi Road,
Omerga, Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad.
2] Aditya S/o. Sanjay Kadam
Age 21 years, Occ. Eduation,
R/o. Vishnupuri, Nanded,
Dist. Nanded.
3] Urmilabai w/o. Sanjay Kadam,
Age 42 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Munshi Plot, Ekundi Road, Omerga,
Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad.
.. PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector,
MIDC Police Station, Latur,
Dist. Latur.
2] Ashwini w/o. Kalyan Kadam
Age 25 years, Occ, Household,
presently residing at Ekta Niwas,
Vikram Nagar, Latur, Dist. Latur. RESPONDENTS.
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Santosh B. Gastgar
APP for Respondents: Mr S R Yadav
...
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
DATE : 25TH NOVEMBER, 2016.
{2}
5 sr. no..odt
ORAL JUDGMENT :- [PER S.S. SHINDE,J] :-
1] Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and APP for the
respondent. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the
consent of parties. At the outset learned APP informs that the charge sheet
is already filed before the JMFC, Latur.
2] We have carefully perused the allegations in the FIR. So far as
petitioner No.1 Sanjay Laxmanrao Kadam and petitioner No.3 - Urmilabai
w/o. Sanjay Kadam are concerned, they are residing at Omerga, may be at
different place, but in the same town; where the matrimonial house is
situate. There are allegations against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 which will
attract ingredients of alleged offences. Therefore, their application for
quashing the FIR cannot be considered.
3] So far as petitioner No.2 Aditya s/o. Sanjay Kadam is
concerned, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, he is a
student studying Swami Ramandnd Teerth Marathwada University at Nanded.
It is evident from the bonafide certificate (Exh.D page 31) issued by the said
University.
4] Upon careful perusal of the allegations as against Aditya, we
are of the opinion that there is no specific overt act attributed on his part. It
is also not disputed that he is studying and prosecuting studies in Swami
Ramanand Teerth University Nanded. Therefore, keeping in view the
parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana
Vs. Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, in our opinion, the application
for quashing the FIR, so far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, deserves to be
allowed and same is accordingly allowed. The FIR stands quashed as against
the petitioner No.2 - Aditya. Consequently, part of the charge sheet as
relates to him also stands quashed and set aside.
{3}
5 sr. no..odt
5] The writ petition partly allowed to the extent of petitioner
No.2 - Aditya Sanjay Kadam. Though we have rejected this writ petition
qua petitioner Nos. 1 and 3, the rejection may not be construed as an
impediment for them if they wish, to avail appropriate remedy by filing
application for discharge before the concerned JMFC Court at Latur.
Criminal writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
[K.K.SONAWANE] [S.S. SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
grt/-
