Bombay High Court
Yogesh S/O. Arju Gite And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 11 October, 2017
Bench: S.S. Shinde
3897.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3897 OF 2017
1. Yogesh s/o.Arjun Gite,
Age: 36 Years, Occu: Agri.
2. Ankit s/o.Govind Asawa,
Age: 21 years, Occu: Agri.
3. Krishna s/o.Govind Asawa
Age: 25 Years, Occu. Agri.
4. Govind s/o. Ratanlal Asawa,
Age: 53 Years, Occu: Agri.
5. Tarabai w/o. Ratanlal Asawa
Age: 74 years, Occu. Nil.
6. Santosh s/o. Sahebrao Gadekar,
Age : 24 years, Occu. Driver,
All R/o. Songaon, Tq.Rahuri,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
[Application of applicant nos.
1 to 4 & 6 dismissed as withdrawn
as per Court's Order dt.10.08.2017]
APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station,
Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar.
2. Purushottam s/o. Ratanlal Asawa,
Age-52 years, Occu-Agri.
R/o.Songaon, Tq.Rahuri,
Dist. Ahmednagar. RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:18:52 :::
3897.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
2
...
Mr.Kunal A.Kale, Advocate for the applicants
Mr.A.R.Kale, APP for Respondent - State
Mr.Sandip R.Andhale, Advocate for respondent
no.2.
...
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
MANGESH S.PATIL,JJ.
DATE : 11.10.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT: [Per S.S.Shinde, J.]
1] Rule. Rule made returnable
forthwith, and heard finally with the consent
of the parties.
2] So for as applicant nos.1 to 4 and 6
are concerned, application on their behalf
has been withdrawn on 10th August, 2017.
Therefore, we are considering the case of
applicant no.5 Tarabai w/o.Ratanlal Asawa.
3] Learned counsel appearing for the
applicants submits that the age of applicant
no.5 Tarabai Asawa is 74 years. No any
specific allegations are made against her.
No specific role is attributed to her. Even
3897.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
if the allegations in the First Information
Report [for short 'FIR'] are taken at its
face value and read in its entirety, the
alleged offences as against applicant no.5
are not disclosed. The allegations in the FIR
are inherently improbable since the applicant
no.5 is a old age lady. Therefore, he submits
that the application may be allowed.
4] On the other hand, learned APP
appearing for respondent-State and learned
counsel appearing for respondent no.2 relying
upon the allegations in the FIR and also
statements of the witnesses recorded during
the course of investigation, submit that, the
presence of applicant no.5 Tarabai Asawa is
stated by the witnesses. There are specific
allegation in the FIR and also role is
attributed to her by the witnesses. The
Investigation Officer has collected
sufficient material during the course of
investigation and trial can proceed against
3897.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
the applicant no.5. Therefore, they jointly
pray that the application may be rejected.
5] We have carefully perused the
allegations in the FIR and also charge sheet
and accompaniments of the charge-sheet. So
far as applicant no.5 Tarabai is concerned,
it is not disputed by the respondents about
the age of applicant no.5; who is 74 years
old as mentioned in the cause title of the
application. Apart from it, there is no any
specific overt act attributed to her. There
are general allegations. In our opinion,
since applicant no.5 Tarabai Asawa is old age
lady, the allegations against her are
inherently improbable, therefore, keeping in
view the exposition of law by the Supreme
Court in the case "State of Haryana V/s
Bhajan Lal1" held that, in following
categories the Court would be able to quash
the F.I.R.
1 AIR 1992 SC 604
3897.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
108. In the backdrop of the
interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV
and of the principles of law enunciated
by this Court in a series of decisions
relating to the exercise of the extra-
ordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it
may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give
an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of
cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
1. Where the allegations made in the First
Information Report or the complaint,
even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do
not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused.
3897.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
2. Where the allegations in the First
Information Report and other materials,
if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not
disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police
officers under Section 156(1) of the
Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of
any offence and make out a case against
the accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do
not constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order of
a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR
or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach
a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of
the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in
3897.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him
due to private and personal grudge.
6] The case of applicant no.5 Tarabai
Asawa be covered under category nos.1 and 5
of the aforesaid categories. Therefore, the
application is allowed to the extent of
applicant no.5-Tarabai Ratanlal Asawa. Rule
is made absolute on above terms.
7] The observations made herein above
are prima facie in nature and confined to the
adjudication of this application and the
trial Court shall not get influenced by the
above mentioned observations during the
course of trial.
8] Needless to observe that the
3897.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
prosecution can proceed against other
applicant nos.1 to 4 and 6.
[MANGESH S.PATIL] [S.S.SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
DDC
