Santosh Ananda Yadav vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 3656 Bom

                                                                                  17. cri wp 2353-17.doc


RMA      
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2353 OF 2017


            Santosh Ananda Yadav                                          .. Petitioner

                                  Versus
            The State of Maharashtra                                      .. Respondent

                                                   ...................
            Appearances
            Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure Advocate for the Petitioner
            Mrs. G.P. Mulekar      APP for the State
                                                   ...................



                              CORAM        : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                               SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE : JUNE 27, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

1. Heard both sides.

2. Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule is made

returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally.

3. The prayer of the petitioner is for quashing of FIR No.

119/2017 of APMC Police Station, Navi Mumbai. The said FIR

is under Sections 353, 504 and 506(2) of IPC. Learned

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3

17. cri wp 2353-17.doc

counsel for the petitioner submitted that the incident had

taken place on 1.4.2017, however, the FIR is dated

20.4.2017. He submitted that this shows that the petitioner

has been falsely implicated in this case, hence, it is a fit case

for quashing of the FIR.

4. Learned APP pointed out that on the same day i.e on

1.4.2017 itself, the first informant gave a complaint to the

Secretary of APMC wherein he has narrated about the

incident in detail. The involvement of the petitioner is stated

therein. In this complaint, the first informant clearly stated

that threat was given to his life and all the ingredients

making out an offence under Sections 353, 504 and 506(2)

of IPC is made out in this complaint. Thereafter, the first

informant has lodged N.C. on 3.4.2017 and thereafter, he

has lodged the FIR on 20.4.2017. The reason for delay in

lodging the FIR has been stated in the FIR itself. As stated

earlier on 1.4.2017 itself, the first informant has stated all

the details relating to the incident to the Secretary of APMC

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3

17. cri wp 2353-17.doc

which makes out an offence under Sections 353, 504 and

506(2) of IPC.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made various

submissions, however, those would be by way of defence of

the petitioner during the trial. We cannot take the same into

consideration at this stage. At this stage, we have to see

only whether on the face of it, the FIR makes out the offence

under Sections 353, 504 and 506(2) of IPC. The FIR clearly

makes out these offences, hence, this is not a fit case for

quashing of the FIR. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Rule is

discharged.

[ SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J. ]              [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                         3 of 3