Bombay High Court
Baban S/O Shripati Gaikwad And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 3 May, 2017
Bench: S.S. Shinde
520.16WP
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 520 OF 2016
(WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2059 OF 2017)
1. Baban S/o Shripati Gaikwad
Age : 75 years, Occ : Agri.,
2. Babasaheb S/o Baban Gaikwad
Age : 40 years, Occ : Agri.,
Both R/o Ramwadi, Tq. Vaijapur Gramin-1,
Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad.
3. Ravindra Bahusaheb Gaikwad
Age : 37 years, Occ : Service,
R/o Fulewadi, Tq. Vaijapur,
Gramin-1, Tq. Vaijapur,
Dist. Aurangabad.
4. Bahusaheb Bapurao Gaikwad
Age : 67 years, Occ : Nil,
5. Reshmabai Bhausaheb Gaikwad
Age : 62 years, Occ : Nil,
6. Nilesh Bhausaheb Gaikwad
Age : 34 years, Occ : Agri.,
Petition Nos.4 to 6
R/o Fulewadi, Tq. Vaijapur
Gramin-1, Tq. Vaijapur,
Dist. Aurangabad.
7. Bharati Indraraj Gaikwad
Age : Major, occ : Household,
R/o Ramwadi, Vaijapur Gramin-1,
Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad
Bharati Bhimrao Gore
Age : Major, Occ : Household,
R/o Fulewadi, Tq. Vaijapur,
Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:19:50 :::
520.16WP
2
8. Babasaheb Shivram Abhang
Age : 45 years, Occ : Agri.,
R/o Rotegaon, Tq. Dist. Jalgaon.
..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through : Begampura Police
Station, Aurangabad
2. Tarabai Shantilal Tilekar
Age : 35 years, Occ : Agri.,
R/o Ramwadi (Tilekar Vasti),
Vaijapur Gramin-1,
Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad.
..RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for petitioners : Mr.K.C. Sant
APP for Respondent/State : Mr. P.G. Borade
Advocate for respondent no.2 : Mr. V.C. Patil
holding for Mr. S.M. Godsay
....
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 27 April, 2017
PRONOUNCED ON : 3rd May, 2017
JUDGMENT (PER S.S. SHINDE, J)
Heard the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P.
appearing for the respondent/State.
2. The learned counsel appearing for
520.16WP
the petitioners submits that, the petitioners
may be allowed to amend the Petition in view
of filing charge-sheet by the Investigating
Officer on 16th November, 2016. It appears
that, Writ Petition was filed on 7th April,
2016. Thereafter, this Court issued notices
to the respondents on 26th April, 2016. There
was no impediment for Investigating Officer
to proceed with the investigation and even
for filing the charge-sheet. Accordingly, the
charge-sheet is filed in the month of
November, 2016. The petitioners did not take
immediate steps to amend the Petition and
kept the Petition pending for considerable
time and after six months, the prayer is made
to allow the petitioners to amend the
Petition.
3. When Writ Petition is pending and
the charge-sheet is filed in the month of
November, 2016, without seeking leave of this
520.16WP
Court, the petitioners have attempted to file
the application and take additional documents
on record. Keeping in view the pendency of
Writ Petition and the fact that, the charge-
sheet is filed way back in the month of
November, 2016, it is not desirable to
entertain application for amendment of the
Writ Petition. As already observed, the
charge-sheet is filed in the month of
November, 2016 and this Court is not made
aware about the further development, which
has taken place before the trial Court. Be
that as it may, we are not inclined to allow
the application, hence the Criminal
Application no.2059 of 2017 stands disposed
of.
4. The learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners invites our attention to the
allegations in the first information report
and submits that, the allegations in the
520.16WP
first information report are taken at its
face value and read in its entirety, the
alleged offences have not been disclosed.
There are no overt acts attributed qua the
petitioners and there are general
allegations. Therefore, relying upon the
pleadings in the Petition, grounds taken
therein, and also the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the cases of Netai Dutta V/s
State of W.B.1, M. Mohan V/s State
Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police2 and State of Kerala and others V/s S.
Unikrishnan Nair and others3 and unreported
judgment in the case of Aniruddha S/o Ganesh
Pathak V/s State of Maharashtra in Criminal
Application no.2219 of 2008 decided on 21st
November, 2009, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners submits that, the
Petition deserves to be allowed.
1 AIR 2005 SC 1775
2 2011(3) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 127
3 2016(3) Mh.L.J. (Cri) 485
520.16WP
5. On the other hand, the learned
A.P.P. appearing for the respondent/State
invites our attention to the accompaniments
of the charge-sheet and submits that, the
note written by deceased Shantilal Kishanlal
Tilakar, the husband of respondent no.2, is
recovered. He has named all the petitioners.
Other incriminating material is also
collected by Investigating Officer during the
investigation. There are statements of the
witnesses, which support the allegations in
the first information report. It is submitted
that, the allegations in the first
information report clearly attracts an
ingredients of section 107 and section 306 of
the I.P. Code. The allegations in the first
information report and the material collected
by the Investigating Officer would also
disclose the alleged offences punishable
under Sections 406, 420 and 506 etc., read
with 34 of the I.P. Code.
520.16WP
6. Upon hearing the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, the learned
A.P.P. appearing for the respondent/State and
upon careful perusal of the contents of note
written by the deceased Shantilal before his
death, the statements of the witnesses and
the report of Handwriting expert and all
other material collected by the Investigating
Officer, in our opinion, it is not
justifiable to entertain the prayer for
quashing the first information report. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently taken
a view that, no doubt, under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High
Court has inherent power to quash the
criminal proceedings in an appropriate cases,
even in those cases which are not
compoundable. However, this power is to be
exercised sparingly and with caution.
520.16WP
7. As already observed, the charge-
sheet is already filed. The alleged offences
are not only disclosed under section 306 but
under the provisions of Sections 406, 420,
506 etc., read with 34 of the I.P. Code. In
that view of the matter, we are not inclined
to entertain the prayer for quashing the
first information report. In case the charge
is not already framed by the trial Court, it
would be open for the petitioners to approach
the trial Court by way of filing the
application for discharge. In case, the
petitioners file the application for
discharge within four weeks from today, the
concerned Court to decide the same, as
expeditiously as possible, and preferably not
later than eight weeks from filing such
application, keeping in view of the fact
that, the charge-sheet is filed long back in
the month of November, 2016.
520.16WP
8. With the above observations, the
Petition stands disposed of. An observations
made hereinbefore are, prima facie, in nature
and confined to the adjudication of present
Writ Petition and the trial Court shall not
get influenced by the said observations while
entertaining the application for discharge or
during the trial, as the case may be.
(K.K. SONAWANE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)
...
sga
