Premdas S/O. Yashudas Bedare vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 5869 Bom

                                                   2757.2017 Cri.Appln..odt
                                         1


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2757 OF 2017

          Premdas s/o. Yashudas Bedare,  
          Age: 37 Years, Occ. Service, 
          R/o. Gokul Nagar Chourasta, 
          Taluka & District Nanded.         APPLICANT 
                                            
               VERSUS 

          1.       The State of Maharashtra, 
                   Through the Police Sub-Inspector,  
                   Vazirabad Police Station,  
                   Tq. & Dist. Nanded.  

          2.   Priti w/o. Prashant Bedare 
               [Khatgaonkar],  
               Age: 31 Years, Occ. Household,  
               R/o. Isaac Khatgoankar, 
               [D.S.] Methoist Charch, 
               Prakashalya Kamalnagar, 
               Tq.Aurad & Dist.Bidar
               [Karnataka]                 RESPONDENTS 
                                ...
          Mr.Shivsamb   N.Janakwade,   Advocate   for   the 
          applicant. 
          Mr.S.P.Deshmukh, APP for Respondent-State
          Mr.S.P.Karkare, Advocate for respondent no.2 
                                ...
                           CORAM:  S.S.SHINDE & 
                                   A.M.DHAVALE,JJ. 

Date: 11.08.2017

ORAL JUDGMENT: [Per S.S.Shinde,J.]

1] Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable

forthwith, and heard finally with the consent

of the parties.

2757.2017 Cri.Appln..odt

2] This Application is filed praying

therein for quashing and setting aside R.C.C.

No.410/2017 pending before the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Nanded and First Information

Report bearing Crime No.197/2015, dated 17th

December, 2016, registered at Vazirabad

Police Station, Nanded, and charge-sheet

filed by respondent no.1 dated 3rd July, 2017

to the extent of present applicant for the

offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323,

324, 504, 506 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal

Code.

3] Learned counsel appearing for the

applicant invites our attention to the

contents of the First Information Report [for

short 'FIR'], and also the charge-sheet and

accompaniments of the charge-sheet. He

submits that so far allegations against the

applicant, who is brother-in-law of

respondent no.2 i.e. informant, are

2757.2017 Cri.Appln..odt

concerned, same are general in nature, vague,

and without mentioning any specific date and

time of such alleged incident. He invites our

attention to the Page 30 of the compilation

of the Criminal Application, and submits that

the applicant is residing separately at

Nanded City with his family. He submits that

further continuation of the proceedings as

against the present applicant on the basis of

Crime No.197/2015 registered at Vazirabad

Police Station, Nanded, for the offences

punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 324,

504, 506 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code

would be exercise in futility, and therefore,

the application may be allowed.

4] On the other hand, learned APP

appearing for respondent-State, and learned

counsel appearing for respondent no.2,

relying upon the allegations in the FIR, and

also the statements of the witnesses submit

2757.2017 Cri.Appln..odt

that along with other accused, there are

specific allegations against the applicant;

the applicant is residing at Nanded.

5] Upon hearing the learned counsel

appearing for the applicant, learned APP

appearing for respondent-State, and learned

counsel appearing for respondent no.2, and

upon careful perusal of the allegations in

the FIR, charge-sheet and accompaniments of

the charge-sheet, and the statements of the

witnesses, it appears that, there is

allegation in respect of demand of

Rs.50,000/- against the members of the

matrimonial house of the informant, and it is

alleged against the applicant that he

instigated the husband of respondent no.2

i.e. informant to beat/assault the informant

in such a way that, she cannot tell or show

other people about such beating. The relevant

portion of the allegations in FIR as against

2757.2017 Cri.Appln..odt

the applicant is as under:

Hkk;k izsenkl csnjs Eg.kkyk dh] fryk vklk ekj ns dh] yksdkauk nk[kfork ;s.kkj ukgh vls Eg.kwu vaxkoj /kkowu vkyk-

6] As already observed, upon careful

perusal of the allegations in the FIR, and

the statements of the witnesses, there is no

mention of specific date of incident. There

is no denial to the fact that the applicant

is separately residing in Gorakshan Gokul

Nagar, Chaurasta at Nanded. Upon perusal of

the contents of the FIR, it appears that, the

applicant and his wife tried to mediate and

convince the informant to go for

cohabitation.

7] In that view of the matter, keeping

in view the exposition of law by the Supreme

Court in the case of State of Haryana V/s

Bhajan Lal1 wherein in para 108 it is held as

1 AIR 1992 SC 604

2757.2017 Cri.Appln..odt

under:

108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra- ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do

2757.2017 Cri.Appln..odt

not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under

2757.2017 Cri.Appln..odt

which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

8] The case of the applicant is

squarely covered in category no.1 of the

aforesaid categories. In that view of the

matter, further continuation of the

proceedings as against the applicant will

tantamount to abuse of process of the Court

and exercise in futility, since chances of

conviction are bleak.

9] In the light of the discussion in

the foregoing paragraphs, Criminal

Application succeeds. The Application is

2757.2017 Cri.Appln..odt

allowed in terms of prayer clause-A, however,

restricted to applicant only. Rule is made

absolute in above terms, to the extent of the

present applicant only. The Application

stands disposed of accordingly.

10] Needless to observe that the trial

Court can proceed against other accused.

               [A.M.DHAVALE]            [S.S.SHINDE]
                   JUDGE                    JUDGE  
          DDC