Suryakanta W/O Bhagwan Kale And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 6534 Bom

                                                          Cri.Appln.1204/2016
                                     1

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1204 OF 2016

1.      Suryakanta w/o Bhagwan Kale,
        Age 57 years, Occu. Housewife,
        R/o Dharmawadi, Taluka Majalgaon,
        District Beed

2.      Bhagwan s/o Dagdu Kale,
        Age 62 years, Occu. Agri.,
        R/o Dharmawadi, Taluka Majalgaon,
        District Beed

3.      Digambar s/o Bhagwan Kale
        Age 32 years, Occu. Agri.,
        R/o Dharmawadi, Taluka Majalgaon,
        District Beed

4.      Mangal w/o Digambar Kale,
        Age 25 years, Occu. Housewife
        R/o Dharmawadi, Taluka Majalgaon,
        District Beed

5.      Santram s/o Kashiba Yadav,
        Age 77 years, Occu. Agri.,
        R/o Dharmawadi, Taluka Majalgaon,
        District Beed

6.      Kausabai w/o Santram Yadav,
        Age 72 years, Occu. Housewife
        R/o Dharmawadi, Taluka Majalgaon,
        District Beed

7.      Krishna s/o Bhagwan Kale,
        Age 27 years, Occu. Agri.,
        R/o Dharmawadi, Taluka Majalgaon,
        District Beed

8.      Soni d/o Ramchandra Yadav,
        Age 20 years, Occu. Agri.,
        R/o Chavanwadi, Taluka Georai,
        District Beed

9.      Ramchandra Yadav,
        Age 40 years, Occu. Agri.,
        R/o Dharmawadi, Taluka Majalgaon,
        District Beed                              .. Applicants

                Versus

1.      State of Maharashtra,




::: Uploaded on - 31/08/2017                ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2017 00:43:09 :::
                                                                Cri.Appln.1204/2016
                                      2

        Through Police Inspector,
        Majalgaon Police Station,
        Majalgaon, District Beed

2.      Ashwini w/o Krishna Kale,
        Age 22 years, Occu. Housewife,
        R/o Bhatt Galli, Majalgaon,
        District Beed                                   .. Respondents

Mr S.G. Dodya and Mr P.M. Muley, Advocates for applicants Mr S.J. Salgare, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 Mr D.G. Kamble, Advocate for respondent no.2

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND A.M. DHAVALE, JJ

DATE : 24th August 2017

PER COURT

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties,

matter is heard finally at admission stage.

2. It is the case of the applicants that respondent no.2 herein has

lodged F.I.R. being Crime No.8/2016, for the offences punishable

under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal

Code. It is the case of the applicants that even before registering the

aforementioned F.I.R., the respondent no.2 herein filed the complaint

on 14th June 2014 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,

Majalgaon. It is the contention of the applicants that the averments in

the complaint and allegations made in the F.I.R. are almost same. It is

further the case of the applicants that the Court of Judicial Magistrate,

First Class at Majalgaon has already proceeded in the said case

bearing Cri.Misc. Application No. 209 of 2014 and recorded the

evidence of the complainant before framing the charge on 10 th

February 2015. It is the contention of the applicants that on same set

of allegations, the applicants should not be asked to face the

Cri.Appln.1204/2016

allegations in the F.I.R. when the concerned Court has already

entertained the complaint and evidence of the complainant is

recorded before framing the charge. Therefore, the Counsel

appearing for the applicants submit that the F.I.R. deserves to be

quashed.

3. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. submits that even if the

investigation is carried out further on the basis of F.I.R., no prejudice

would be caused to the applicants inasmuch as, in present case.

Ultimately, the concerned Court would invoke the provisions of

Section 210 of Cr.P.C., and the grievance raised by the applicants in

this application can be taken care of by the learned Magistrate.

4, Learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submits that

the allegations made in the F.I.R. are different and not similar to that

of the averments made in the complaint. Therefore, the investigation

can proceed on the basis of the allegations in the F.I.R. impugned in

this application. Therefore, he submits that the application may be

rejected.

5. We have carefully perused the averments in the complaint and

also allegations in the F.I.R. An allegations in the F.I.R. are almost

same like allegations made in the complaint.

6. In that view of the matter and keeping in view of the judgment

of Apex Court in the matter of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala,

reported in AIR 2001 SC 2637, wherein it has been held that

registration of another F.I.R. in respect of the same incident as F.I.R.

Cri.Appln.1204/2016

under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. was not valid and legal and required to

be quashed. In the present case also, the F.I.R. deserves to be

quashed and the same is accordingly quashed.

7. Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). The

application stands disposed of.

8. We make it clear that the proceedings in R.C.C. No.174 of 2014

shall remain unaffected, and the concerned Court can proceed with

the said proceedings on its own merits and uninfluenced by

observations made herein before.

9. The observations made hereinbefore are confined to the

adjudication of the present application only.

       ( A.M. DHAVALE, J.)                      ( S.S. SHINDE, J.)




vvr