Bombay High Court
Dayaram Balchand @ Balsing ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. ... on 7 September, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
0709apl48.17-Judgment 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 48 OF 2017
APPLICANTS :- 1. Dayaram Balchand @ Balsing Chavhan,
Aged about 64 years, Occu: Retired, R/o Tq.
Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
2. Vijay Hirasing Chavhan, Aged about 55
years, Occu: Agriculturist, R/o Bhuli
(Mahuli), Tq. Manora, Distt. Washim.
3. Premsing Hirasing Chavhan, Aged about 47
years, Occu: Service, R/o. Yavatmal, Tq. &
Distt. Yavatmal.
4. Balusing Hirasing Chavhan, Aged aabout 45
years, Occ: Service, R/o Yavatmal, Tq. &
Distt. Yavatmal.
5. Shankar Rangrao Rathod, Aged about 46
years (Dabhadi), Tq. Arni, Distt. Yavatmal.
...VERSUS...
NON-APPLICANTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, Through P.S.O.
Wadgaon Road, Yavatmal, Tq. & Distt.
Yavatmal.
2. Prakash Harsing Pawar, Aged - Adult, Occu:
Agriculturist, R/o Khandapur (Punarvasan),
Tq. Digras, Distt. Yavatmal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A. R. Chavhan, counsel for the applicants.
Mr.S.S.Doifode, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant No.1.
Mr. R.J.Shinde, counsel for the non-applicant No.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2017 01:27:05 :::
0709apl48.17-Judgment 2/6
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
M. G. GIRATKAR
, JJ.
DATED : 07.09.2017
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per : Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
The criminal application is admitted and heard finally at
the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties.
2. By this criminal application, the applicants seek the
quashing and setting aside of the first information report bearing
No.895 of 2016, registered against the applicants for the offences
punishable under sections 417 and 420 read with section 34 of the
Penal Code.
3. The applicant No.1 is a retired Deputy Superintendent of
Police and the applicant Nos.2 to 4 are his nephews. The non-applicant
No.2 is the complainant who had lodged a report on 19/11/2016
alleging therein that on 07/04/2002, he had paid a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- to the applicants on their promise to provide a job to him.
It is alleged in the complaint filed by the non-applicant No.2 on
0709apl48.17-Judgment 3/6
19/11/2016 that the applicants are the relatives of his wife who is
separated from him since the year 2005. It is alleged that after
accepting the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, the applicants did not provide a
job to the non-applicant No.2. On the basis of the report lodged by the
non-applicant No.2 on 19/11/2016, the first information report bearing
No.895 of 2016 was registered against the applicants for the offences
punishable under sections 417 and 420 read with section 34 of the
Penal Code.
4. Shri Chavhan, the learned counsel for the applicants,
submitted that the non-applicant No.1 has committed a serious error in
registering the first information report against the applicants on
22/11/2016. It is stated that on 03/05/2013 the non-applicant No.2
had lodged a report against the applicant No.2 and one Tarasing,
alleging therein that the applicant No.2 and Tarasing had secured a sum
of Rs.1,88,000/- from the non-applicant No.2 with an assurance that
they would provide a job to him. It is stated that on the basis of the
said report dated 03/05/2013, the first information report was
registered against the applicant No.2 and Tarasing for similar offences
on similar allegations and a charge-sheet was also filed against the
applicant No.2 and Tarasing. It is stated that the applicant No.2 had
filed an application for discharge and an order was passed in favour of
0709apl48.17-Judgment 4/6
the applicant No.2. It is stated that on similar allegations pertaining to
an incident which had allegedly occurred more than 15 years earlier,
the non-applicant No.2 could not have lodged a second report after the
trial court had discharged the non-applicant No.2 and Tarasing. It is
stated that with a view to prevent the abuse of process of court, it
would be necessary to quash and set aside the first information report.
5. Shri Doifode, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the non-applicant No.2 and Shri Shinde, the learned
counsel for the non-applicant No.2, do not dispute that earlier the non-
applicant N o.2 had lodged a report against the applicant No.2 and
Tarasing that they had received a sum of Rs.1,88,000/- from the non-
applicant No.2 with a false promise to provide job to him. It is not
disputed that the first information report was registered on the basis of
the report lodged by the non-applicant No.2 on 03/05/2013 and the
trial court had allowed the application filed by the non-applicant No.2
and Tarasing for their discharge. It is stated that in the circumstances
of the case, an appropriate order may be passed.
6. In the circumstances of the case, the non-applicant No.1
could not have registered the first information report against the
applicants for the offences punishable under sections 417 and 420 of
0709apl48.17-Judgment 5/6
the Penal Code on the basis of the report lodged by the non-applicant
No.2, on 22/11/2016. The non-applicant No.2 had lodged a report
against the applicant No.2 and Tarasing in May, 2013 alleging therein
that they had secured a sum of Rs.1,88,000/- from him in 2002, with an
assurance to provide a job to him. The period of the incident in the
report lodged on 03/05/2013 and the present report lodged by the non-
applicant No.2 on 22/11/2016 is the same. It is apparent that after an
order was passed on the application made by the applicant No.2 and
Tarasing for their discharge, the non-applicant No.2 has mischievously
lodged a second report against the applicants alleging therein that they
had received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from him with an assurance to
provide a job. It is apparent from the allegations in the two reports that
the non-applicant No.2 has abused the process of the court by filing a
second report though the applicant No.2 and Tarasing had succeeded in
securing an order of discharge in the proceedings initiated against them
on the basis of the report lodged by the non-applicant No.2 on
03/05/2013. The non-applicant No.2 does not have any regard for
truth as in the earlier report, he has alleged that an amount of
Rs.1,88,000/- was secured from him with a view to provide a job to him
and in the second report, he has alleged that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
was secured from him for providing a job to him. Not only was the
incident very stale, but the non-applicant No.2 was repeatedly filing
0709apl48.17-Judgment 6/6
reports against one or more applicants on the basis of similar
allegations. In the circumstances of the case, the first information report
is liable to be quashed and set aside.
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the criminal application
is allowed. The first information report registered against the applicants
bearing No.895 of 2016 for the offences punishable under sections 417
and 420 read with section 34 of the Penal Code and the proceedings
arising there from are hereby quashed and set aside. Order accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
