Bombay High Court
Arvind Eknath Pandit And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 April, 2017
Bench: S.C. Dharmadhikari
1 of 4 APL.113.2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.113 OF 2016
Arvind Eknath Pandit and another Applicants
versus
State of Maharashtra and another Respondents
Mr.Indrajeet P. Kulkarni with Ms.Shilpa S. Desai for Applicants.
Ms.M.H.Mhatre, APP, for the Respondent-State.
Ms.Indrayani M. Koparkar with Ms.Kirti Godbole for Respondent
no.3.
CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI AND
PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ.
Date of Reserving the Judgment : 7th April 2017
Date of Pronouncing the Judgment : 18th April 2017
JUDGMENT - (Per : Prakash D. Naik, J.) :-
1. The Applicants have invoked inherent powers of this Court
under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and sought
to challenge First Information Report (`FIR') dated 25th June 2015
registered with Navghar Police Station vide CR No.138 of 2015 for
offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code. The said FIR was registered at the instance of
Respondent no.2. The Applicants were arrayed as accused nos.1 and
2 in the impugned FIR.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows.
The complainant is residing at the address mentioned in the
FIR along with her daughter Ms.Kirti. The brother of the
2 of 4 APL.113.2016
complainant (Applicant no.1) and his daughter (Applicant no.2) are
residing on the ground floor of the same premises. All of them are
closely related to each other. However, there are property disputes
amongst them since last about ten to twelve years. On 25th June
2015, the complainant and her daughter Kirti had visited Swami
Samarth Math. On account of dispute, the complainant had
informed the Applicants-accused that they should not install a stall in
the Matt premises. The Applicant no.2 arrived at the scene of the
offence along with co-accused Sachin Pandit. The accused insisted
that they will put up a stall at the premises, which was objected to by
the complainant and her daughter. The accused viz. Applicants and
Sachin Pandit were annoyed with the objection taken by the
complainant. They broke open the lock of the shutter and started
causing damage in the Matt premises. They also told all the inmates
of the Math to vacate the premises. The complainant and her
daughter were assaulted by iron rod. The complainant gave a call to
Police Control Room and thereafter Police had arrived at the place of
incident. It is further alleged that the complainant and her daughter
were taken to Veer Savarkar Hospital for treatment. The doctor who
treated them informed them that they had suffered fracture to their
hands. Hence, the complaint was lodged with Navghar Police
Station.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the Applicants submitted that
a false case has been registered by Respondent no.2 on account of
enmity. He submitted that there are property disputes for a long
period of time between Applicants and the complainant. He further
submitted that the complainant has exaggerated the incident while
3 of 4 APL.113.2016
lodging the FIR. He further submitted that the Applicant no.2 had
also lodged a complaint with same Police Station against the
complainant and her daughter Kirti and on the basis of the said
compliant and an offence has been registered against them vide CR
No.139 of 2015 under Section 324 read with Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code. He further submitted that the complainant has not
attributed any specific role to the Applicants in the FIR. He also
submitted that there is doubt about the version of the complainant
that iron rod was being used in commission of the alleged crime. He
submitted that the iron rod was not recovered during the course of
investigation and there is no Panchanama in that regard. He relied
upon the decision of Apex Court in case of Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and another1. By placing reliance upon the said decision, it
was submitted that this Court may exercise inherent powers under
Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and quash and set
aside the impugned FIR.
4. Learned APP and learned advocate for Respondent no.2
submitted that prima facie a case has been made out against the
Applicants. Learned APP produced investigation papers which were
perused by us. We have noted that there were injuries on the person
of the complainant and her daughter Kirti.
5. On reading the FIR, prima facie, we are of the opinion that
involvement of the Applicants has been shown in the incident dated
25th June 2015. This is not the stage to appreciate the evidence.
The submission that there is no recovery of iron rod and thus the
1 2012-CRI.L.J.-4934
4 of 4 APL.113.2016
proceedings may be quashed, cannot be accepted, at this stage. The
submissions of learned advocate for the Applicants that incident is a
fall out of property dispute, also cannot be appreciated, as prima
facie, the FIR has attributed role to the Applicants. It is also
pertinent to note that the Trial Court while framing the charge would
take into consideration the evidence on record and would frame
appropriate charge against the accused. The accused no.3 Sachin
Pandit had preferred Criminal Application No.107 of 2016, which
has been dismissed by us vide order dated 7th April 2017. The
statements of the comlainant prima facie discloses commission of an
offence. The Applicants are specifically named in the FIR with overt
act being attributed to them.
6. The decision relied upon by learned advocate for Applicants in
the case of Gian Singh (supra) clearly states that power under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. makes it obligatory on High Court to exercise
its power with utmost care and caution. In view of the aforesaid
circumstances, we are not inclined to quash the impugned
proceedings by invoking inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
7. We, therefore, pass following order :
(a) Criminal Application No.113 of 2016 is dismissed, with no
order as to costs.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
MST
