Sanjay S/O Kashiram Inche And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1338 Bom

                                                3480.2016 Cri.Appln..odt
                                       1



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3480 OF 2016 


          1.       Sanjay s/o. Kashiram Inche,  
                   Age 43 years, Occp. Jarlisam,  
                   R/o. Samarth Nagar, Nutan Vasahat,  
                   Juna Jalna, Ta. & Dist. Jalna.  

          2.       Dnyaneshwar s/o. Dagaduji Nande 
                   Age 50 years, Occp Social work,  
                   R/o. Sambhaji Nagar, Lakkd Kot,  
                   Ta. & Dist. Jalna.  

          3.       Sudhakar s/o. Mohanrao Nikalje, 
                   Age 38 years, Occp. Ageil,  
                   R/o. At post Tandulwadi [Kh.],  
                   Ta. & Dist. Jalna.  

          4.       Dinkar s/o. Shankarrao Ghevande,  
                   Age 39 years, Occ. Social work / Sampadak
                   R/o. Ramabai Nagar, Railway Station,  
                   Juna Jalna, Ta. & Dist. Jalna.  

          5.       Shubhsh s/o. Tukaram Bhalerao, 
                   Age 57 years, Occp. Sampadak,  
                   R/o. Khrichan Coloni, behind J.E.S.
                   College, Ta. & Dist. Jalna.   APPLICANTS

                             VERSUS 

          1.       The State of Maharashtra 

          2.       The Police Sub-Inspector,  
                   Police Station, Jalna,  
                   Ta. & Dist. Jalna.  




::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017               ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:07:22 :::
                                                    3480.2016 Cri.Appln..odt
                                         2


          3.       Narhari s/o. Rambhau Shelke,  
                   Age     Years, Occp. Service,  
                   R/o. Om Nagar, Govt. Quarters,  
                   Ta. & Dist. Jalna.            RESPONDENTS 

                                 ...
          Ms.Maya   R.Jamdhade,   Advocate   for   the 
          applicants
          Mr.S.Y.Mahajan,   APP   for   the   Respondent   / 
          State
          Mr.V.R.Autade, Advocate for respondent no.3
                                 ...

                          CORAM:  S.S.SHINDE & 
                                  K.K.SONAWANE,JJ.     

Reserved on : 24.03.2017 Pronounced on : 31.03.2017

JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):

1. This Application is filed praying

therein for quashing the First Information

Report bearing Crime No.260/2016, registered

with Jalna Taluka Police Station, Jalna, for

the offence punishable under Sections 385,

500, 501 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The learned counsel appearing for

the applicants invites our attention to the

allegations in the FIR and submits that, even

if the allegation in the FIR are taken at its

3480.2016 Cri.Appln..odt

face value and read in its entirety, an

alleged offences are not disclosed, and

therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed.

She further invites our attention to the

provisions of the Sections 385, 500 and 501

r/w.34 of the IPC and submits that, the

ingredients of the said alleged offences are

not disclosed. She submits that, the Division

Bench of the Bombay High Court, Bench at

Aurangabad, in the case of Shriram Satwaji

Jadhav Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.1,

has quashed the FIR on the ground of delay in

lodging the FIR. She submits that, in the

present case also there is delay in lodging

the FIR. She submits that, in the FIR there

is no allegation that, the amount was

actually given to the accused. In support of

her contention that, the FIR lodged by the

informant-respondent no.3 is mala fide, and

based on vague assertions, and therefore, the

1 2014 ALL MR [Cri.] 3643

3480.2016 Cri.Appln..odt

same deserves to be quashed, she placed

reliance in the case of Baijnath Jha Vs. Sita

Ram and Anr.2. She also invites our attention

to the judgment of the learned Single Judge

of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case

of Battula Siva Nageshwar Rao Vs. Jasti

Venkateswara Rao in Criminal Petition No.7873

of 2010, decided on 31.03.2016, and

particular in para 12 thereof and submits

that, in case there is no allegation in the

complaint that the accused by putting the

informant in fear of injury has committed

alleged offence, in that case FIR deserves to

be quashed. She further invites our attention

to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the

case of Isaac Isanga Musumba and others Vs.

State of Maharashtra and others3 and submits

that, to attract the ingredients of Sections

383 and 384, it should be mentioned in the

FIR that, the amount so demanded was

2 AIR 2008 SC 2778 3 [2014] 15 SCC 357

3480.2016 Cri.Appln..odt

delivered to the accused by the informant.

Therefore, she submits that, the FIR deserves

to be quashed.

3. On the other hand, the learned APP

appearing for the respondent-State invites

our attention to the investigation papers and

submits that, during investigation it is

transpired that, the applicants were involved

in the alleged offence. In the present case,

Section 385 is mentioned in the FIR, and the

judgments on which reliance is placed by the

learned counsel appearing for the applicants

are in relation to the interpretation of the

provisions of Sections 383 and 384 of the IP

Code. He submits that, the witnesses have

stated that, as a matter of fact the

applicants demanded the amount, and

therefore, the provisions of Section 385 and

other Sections mentioned in the FIR are

attracted, and the alleged offences are

disclosed against the applicants, therefore,

3480.2016 Cri.Appln..odt

further investigation is necessary.

4. The learned counsel appearing for

respondent no.3 invites our attention to the

averments in the affidavit-in-reply. He

submits that, the applicants will have to

satisfy that the complaint lacks ingredients

of Section 385 of the IP Code. The applicants

intentionally putting respondent no.3 in fear

of injury and tried to extract money. The

accused/applicants threatened to publish a

defamatory material concerning respondent

no.3, with demand to respondent no.3 that,

unless he gives them money, they will publish

defamatory statement against respondent no.3.

It is further submitted that, all the accused

dishonestly induced respondent no.3 to give

them money, and thereby they have committed

offence of extortion. The ingredients of

Section 385 are clearly attracted. He submits

that, there is sufficient material against

all the accused/applicants, and therefore,

3480.2016 Cri.Appln..odt

the application for quashing FIR may be

rejected. The applicants are having criminal

antecedents and the various offences have

been registered against them, under the

Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. Even the

respondents are having necessary documents to

show that applicant no.3 - Sudhakar Mohanrao

Nikalje has involved in criminal cases in

commission of offence in past. He submits

that, even the offences punishable under

Sections 384 and 386 are also registered

against applicant no.3-Sudhakar Mohanrao

Nikalje. In support of his contention that,

to attract ingredients of Section 385 of the

IP Code actual delivery of amount is not

necessary, he invites our attention to the

judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the

case of Biram Lal Vs. State4.

5. We have carefully considered the

submissions of the learned counsel appearing

4 RAJLW 2007 1 713

3480.2016 Cri.Appln..odt

for the applicants, learned APP appearing for

respondent-State, and the learned counsel

appearing for respondent no.3. With their

able assistance, we have carefully perused

the allegations in the FIR, and the

investigation papers made available by the

learned APP. It appears that, the accused -

applicants attended one function in Saffron

Hotel. Applicant no.1 Sanjay Kashiram Inche

and applicant no.2 Dnyaneshwar Dagaduji Nande

attended the said function without

invitation, and in that function applicant

no.1 and applicant no.2 conducted video

shooting / video clips of the said function

in their mobile, and on the basis of said

video clips stored in their mobile along with

other three accused i.e. applicant nos.3 to 5

so as to extract money from respondent no.3

and other Officers decided to visit those

Officers, and accordingly, under the fear of

causing injury to the reputation of

3480.2016 Cri.Appln..odt

respondent no.3, and other Officers demanded

money. There are statements of witnesses, who

attended the said function in Saffron Hotel

at Jalna. Upon perusal of the allegations in

the FIR, an alleged offences have been

disclosed, and those needs investigation. At

this stage, this Court is not supposed to

find out the correctness of those

allegations. Reliance placed by the learned

counsel appearing for the applicants on the

observations made by the Supreme Court in the

case of Isaac Isanga Musumba [cited supra] is

misplaced in the facts of the present case

inasmuch as in the present case alleged

offences are under Section 385, 500, 501 r/w.

34 of the IPC so as to attract ingredients of

Section 385, it is not necessary to mention

in the complaint that the amount so demanded

is actually delivered to the accused.

6. It further appears from the perusal

of the allegations in the FIR that the

3480.2016 Cri.Appln..odt

applicants in order to extract the amount /

money from respondent no.3 published news in

daily 'Duniyadari' dated 20th June, 2016, and

thereby causing injury to the reputation of

respondent no.3 by publishing a false

allegation. Therefore, in our opinion, no

case is made out for quashing the FIR, hence,

application stands rejected.

7. The observations made herein before

are prima facie in nature and confined to the

adjudication of the present application only.

This order will not preclude the applicants

from applying for discharge in the event of

filing charge-sheet by the Investigating

Officer.

              [K.K.SONAWANE]            [S.S.SHINDE]
                  JUDGE                    JUDGE  
          DDC