Rakesh S/O. Rajendra Gaikwad And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9293 Bom

                                                                   cwp778.17
                                        1


                                        
      IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD


              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.778 OF 2017


 1) Rakesh s/o Rajendra Gaikwad,
    Age-24 years, Occu:Education -
    Studying in 3rd year of 
    Mechanical Engineering Course,
    R/o-Government Hostel, N-8, CIDCO,
    Aurangabad,

 2) Rupesh s/o Parmeshwar Gutte,
    Age-28 years, Occu:Private Service
    as Engineer, R/o-Chhatrapati Nagar,
    Beed Bypass Road, Aurangabad,

 3) Rohit s/o Ramesh Gitte,
    Age-24 years, Occu:Education -
    Studying in Final year of B.E.
    Mechanical, R/o-MIT Boys Hostel,
    Beed Bypass, Aurangabad,

 4) Maruti s/o Venkatrao Deokate,
    Age-23 years, Occu:Education-
    Studying in Final year of B.E.
    Mechanical, R/o-MIT Hostel,
    Beed Bypass, Aurangabad,

 5) Rishikesh s/o Dinkar Sanap,
    Age-27 years, Occu:Education-
    Studying in Final year of B.E.
    Civil Engineer, 
    R/o-Mahalaxmi Colony,
    N-2, CIDCO, Aurangabad,




::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:19:55 :::
                                                         cwp778.17
                               2


 6) Amol s/o Jalindarrao Giri,
    Age-24 years, Occu:Private Service
    as a Engineer, R/o-Shivaji Nagar,
    Majalgaon, Tq-Majalgaon,
    Dist-Beed.
                                 ...PETITIONERS 

        VERSUS             

 1) The State of Maharashtra,
    Through the Secretary,
    Home Department, Mantralaya,
    Mumbai,

 2) The Commissioner of Police,
    Aurangabad City, Aurangabad,

 3) Dy. Commissioner of Police,
    Circle-2, Aurangabad City,
    Aurangabad,

 4) Bhikchand Khanduji Ghitre,
    Age-55 years, Occu:Service as 
    Sub-Inspector, R/o-CIDCO
    Police Station, Aurangabad.
    
                                 ...RESPONDENTS

                      ...
    Mr.J.M. Murkute Advocate for Petitioners.
    Mr.D.R. Kale, A.P.P. for Respondent 
    Nos. 1 to 3.       
                      ...

               CORAM:   S.S. SHINDE AND
                        MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 22ND NOVEMBER, 2017

DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 5TH DECEMBER, 2017

cwp778.17

JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and

heard finally with the consent of the learned

counsel appearing for the parties.

2. This Writ Petition is filed with

following prayers:

"B] The First Information Report

No.0167/2017 dated 04/03/2017

registered at CIDCO (City) Police

Station Aurangabad for the offence

punishable u/s. 143, 341 of Indian

Penal Code may kindly be quashed and

set aside.

B-1] The charge-sheet No.225/17 dated

28/08/2017 filed by Assistant Police

Sub-Inspector CIDCO Police Station

cwp778.17

Aurangabad in relation to Crime

No.167/2017 for the offence punishable

u/s. 143, 341 of I.P.C. may kindly be

quashed and set aside."

3. Learned counsel appearing for the

Petitioners submitted that on 3rd March, 2017

there was birthday of Petitioner No.1 Rohit. At

10.30 p.m. the Petitioners were in Koyala Hotel

for taking dinner. Police came there and

thereafter Petitioners Rohit, Rupesh and Rishikesh

were taken to the police station. Petitioner No.4

Deokate went to the police station at about 12.00

midnight for making inquiry about his friends

Rohit and others. At that time Rohit was taken in

the custody by the police. Relying upon the

grounds taken in the Petition, learned counsel

submitted that the Petitioners have not committed

any of the offence as alleged and they are falsely

involved in the crime by making false allegations

and creating false record against the Petitioners.

cwp778.17

4. Learned counsel further submitted that

even if the allegations in the F.I.R. are taken at

its face value and read in its entirety, an

alleged offences are not disclosed. It is

submitted that the Petitioners are students and

they are falsely involved in the criminal case,

there would be danger to their future career. No

complaint was filed by any person stating that the

Petitioners have blocked the public way by using

criminal force.

5. During the pendency of this Petition,

charge-sheet came to be filed and therefore the

Petitioners have amended the Petition. Referring

to the grounds taken out by the amendment, learned

counsel submitted that in the First Information

Report (for short "FIR") numbers of some vehicles

were recorded as belonging to the Petitioners,

however during investigation police came to know

that owners of those vehicles were some other

cwp778.17

persons. While filing charge-sheet, the police had

given clean cheat to those persons and their names

are shown as witnesses in this case. No fair

investigation is conducted by the Investigating

Officer and perusal of the charge-sheet shows that

the Petitioners are falsely involved in the bogus

case. It is further submitted that police had not

disclosed true facts in the charge-sheet. In fact

Petitioner No.1 Rakesh was not on the spot but he

was in the Government hostel. Therefore, it is

prayed that the Petition may be allowed.

6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P.

appearing for the State relying upon the

allegations in the F.I.R. and accompaniments of

the charge-sheet, submits that there is sufficient

material collected by the Investigating Officer

which would show the involvement of the

Petitioners and therefore the Petition may be

rejected.

cwp778.17

7. We have given careful consideration to

the submissions of learned counsel appearing for

the Petitioners and learned A.P.P. appearing for

the State. With their able assistance, we have

perused the grounds taken in the Petition,

annexures thereto, allegations in the F.I.R.,

charge-sheet and its accompaniments. Upon careful

perusal of the allegations in the F.I.R., it is

alleged that for celebrating the birthday of

Petitioner Rohit, all the Petitioners have made

unlawful assembly at Connaught Place, Cidco,

Aurangabad and parked their vehicles on the road

and thereby caused obstruction to the traffic.

Upon careful perusal of the allegations in the

F.I.R. and also the statement of witnesses, in our

opinion, the alleged offences are not disclosed as

against the Petitioners. Learned counsel invited

our attention to the affidavits filed by the

Petitioners. Except Petitioner Rakesh, all other

Petitioners have admitted that on 3rd March, 2017

they gathered at Connought Place, Aurangabad to

cwp778.17

have a joint dinner to celebrate birthday of their

friend - Rohit and it is further submitted that

they did not gather there to commit any offence.

Thus, it appears that though the Petitioners

gathered at Connought Place, their intention was

to celebrate birthday of their friend and it was

not their intention to commit any mischief or

criminal trespass or any offence. Upon perusal of

the entire documents placed on record, it appears

that no document is placed on record to show that

the Petitioners have wrongfully restrained any

person. Therefore, in our opinion, the alleged

offences are not at all disclosed.

8. We find considerable force in the

argument advanced by learned counsel appearing for

the Petitioners that in the facts of the present

case, keeping in view the fact that most of the

Petitioners are students having their future

career ahead, and the contents of the affidavits

filed by the Petitioners, lenient view needs to be

cwp778.17

taken and therefore we are inclined to allow this

Petition. Upon perusal of the contents of the

charge-sheet and its accompaniments, we are of the

opinion that continuation of further proceedings

on the basis of the F.I.R. would be an abuse of

process of law and exercise in futility. In that

view of the matter, an inevitable conclusion is

that the First Information Report and the

consequential charge-sheet, deserve to be quashed

and set aside.

9. In the result, the First Information

Report and the consequential charge-sheet and

further proceedings are quashed and set aside.

Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause

"B] and B-1]" to the Petition. The Writ Petition

is allowed and the same stands disposed of,

accordingly.

[MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.] asb/NOV17