Bombay High Court
Narhar Supdu Bhadane And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 3 November, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
1 Cr WP 652 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Criminal Writ Petition No.652 of 2010
1) Narhar Supdu Bhadane,
Age 55 years,
Occupation: Service,
R/o Jebapur, Taluka Sakri,
District Dhule.
2) Alkabai Narhar Bhadane,
Age 36 years,
Occupation: Household,
R/o Jebapur, Taluka Sakri,
District Dhule. .. Petitioners.
Versus
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2) The Special Inspector General
of Police Nashik Range, Nashik.
3) The Superintendent of Police,
Dhule, District Dhule.
4) The Police Sub Inspector,
Pimpalner Police Station,
Pimpalner, Taluka Sakri,
District Dhule.
5) Bhagwan Devchand Salve,
Age Major,
Occupation: Service
Police Constable B.No.820
C/o Pimpalner Police Station
Pimpalner, Taluka Sakri
District Dhule.
::: Uploaded on - 08/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2017 01:17:01 :::
2 Cr WP 652 of 2010
6) Yasin Husain Shaikh,
Age Major,
Occupation: Service
Police Constable (Driver)
C/o Pimpalner Police Station,
Pimpalner, Taluka Sakri,
District Dhule.
7) Police Inspector,
Azadnagar Police Station,
Dhule, District Dhule. .. Respondents.
----
Shri. N.B. Suryawanshi, Advocate, for petitioners.
Shri. P.G. Borade, Additional Public Prosecutor, for
respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 7.
Shri. R.S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for respondent Nos.5 and
6.
----
Coram: T.V. NALAWADE &
A.M. DHAVALE, JJ.
Date: 3 November 2017
JUDGMENT (Per T.V. Nalawade, J.):
1) The petition is filed for setting aside and
quashing of the first information report of CR No.39/2010
registered with Pimpalner Police Station against
petitioner No.1 for offences punishable under sections
279, 338 etc. of Indian Penal Code and section 184 of the
3 Cr WP 652 of 2010
Motor Vehicles Act. Relief is also claimed for giving
direction to respondent Nos.3 to 5, concerned police
station and their superior officer to register crime on the
basis of statement given by petitioner No.2 dated 17-5-
2009 and relief is also claimed for giving direction against
respondent No.1 for starting departmental action against
the concerned police officers of Pimpalner Police Station
for dereliction of duty, for not taking proper action.
Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional
Public Prosecutor are heard.
2) It is the case of the petitioners who are
husband and wife that on 17-5-2009 at about 10.00 a.m.
they were proceeding towards Nampur from Pimpalner
side on a motor cycle with their daughter aged about 6
years. It is their contention that when the motor cycle was
proceeding by the side of Shelbari Canvas Police Help
Centre and when the motor cycle was on correct side of
the road, police jeep of Pimpalner Police Station
attempted to overtake from the right side of the motor
cycle and the accident took place. It is their case that due
to the dash given to motor cycle from back side, all the
4 Cr WP 652 of 2010
three persons who were present on the motor cycle were
virtually thrown away and due to that petitioner No.1
sustained grievous injuries and their daughter Purva also
sustained injuries. It is their case that husband, petitioner
No.1, was required to undergo operation and treatment
was required to be given including operation to Purva.
3) It is the case of the petitioners that as the jeep
of Pimpalner Police Station was involved in the accident,
police created false record and they registered the crime
against petitioner No.1 in respect of the accident. It is
their contention that even when the statement of
petitioner No.2 was recorded in the hospital from Dhule
by police of Azadnagar Police Station, Dhule, that
statement was not sent to Pimpalner Police Station and no
crime was registered against the driver of the police jeep.
It is the contention of the petitioners that false record is
created against petitioner No.1 and so the F.I.R. needs to
be quashed and set aside.
4) During arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioners admitted that a private complaint was filed by
the petitioners in respect of the accident and direction
5 Cr WP 652 of 2010
was given by the Magistrate to make investigation of the
matter. He submitted that after making investigation
summary report is filed by police under section 169 of the
Cr.P.C. in the matter. In view of this admitted
circumstance there is no question of giving any relief
mentioned in prayer clause (c).
5) The papers of investigation which are filed
along with the present proceeding show that on 17-5-2009
itself on the basis of the complaint given by Police Head
Constable Bhagwan Salve crime came to registered
against petitioner No.1. He informed that at the relevant
time the jeep driver, Yasin Shaikh was attempting to park
the police jeep near Police Chowki and at that time the
motor cycle of petitioner No.1 which was proceeding
towards Satana side gave dash to the cleaner side and the
accident took place. In the FIR it is mentioned that in the
accident the rider of the motor cycle, petitioner No.1, his
wife and his daughter sustained injuries and they were
shifted to Rural Hospital Pimpalner by police for giving
them treatment. Copy of panchanama dated 17-5-2009 is
produced and it shows that on eastern side of the side
6 Cr WP 652 of 2010
patti one motor cycle was standing. Blood was lying on
the side patti of the road which was having width of 10
feet. The motor cycle had slided to side patti of the road
and the broken pieces of indicator of the motor cycle were
lying there. The tar road had width of 18 feet. Thus, the
point of impact is not shown on the tar road.
6) The learned counsel for the petitioners showed
the photographs of the jeep involved in the accident and
the motor cycle of petitioner No.1 and submitted that the
story given in the F.I.R. by Police Head Constable does not
appear to be probable in nature and the damage to the
vehicles on particular side appearing in the photographs
creates probability that the dash was given to the motor
cycle by the jeep from front side of jeep. The learned
counsel submitted that the petitioners had raised
grievance with the District Superintendent Police, Dhule
as there was possibility of misusing the posts by the police
officers of Pimpalner Police Station but no action was
taken by the District Superintendent of police in that
regard.
7 Cr WP 652 of 2010
7) At present there are papers of investigation
which are against petitioner No.1, the rider of the motor
cycle. In the reply filed, the present proceeding is opposed
by contending that there is more than sufficient evidence
to make out a prima facie case against petitioner No.1 for
the aforesaid offences. There are statements of some
persons who had no connection with police that it was the
negligence of petitioner No.1. In view of these
circumstances, it is not possible to infer at this stage in a
proceeding like present one that mischief is played by
concerned police station and false record is created
against the petitioner No.1. This Court holds that it is not
possible to quash the F.I.R. filed against the petitioner
No.1.
8) When two vehicles are involved in motor
vehicle accident it is always open to both sides to give
F.I.R. and it is up to the police to make investigation and
take appropriate action on the basis of the material
collected during investigation. It is already observed that
a private complaint was already filed by petitioner No.1 as
no crime was registered and necessary order was made
8 Cr WP 652 of 2010
by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Even summary report
is filed under section 169 of the Cr.P.C. It is up to the
Magistrate to decide as to whether the report needs to
be accepted or further orders in favour of the petitioners
need to be passed. The petitioners will get proper
opportunity before the Judicial Magistrate in that regard.
In view of this position law, this Court holds that no
direction as such can be given to the respondents as
claimed by the petitioners. In the result, the petition
stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.
Sd/- Sd/-
(A.M. DHAVALE, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)
rsl
