Bombay High Court
Yogesh Namdev Kharat And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 14 September, 2017
Bench: S.S. Shinde
Cri.Appln.5837/2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5837 OF 2016
1. Yogesh Namdev Kharat,
Age 36 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Shriram colony,
Behind power house, Sailu
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani
2. Namdeo Nathaji Kharat,
Age 65 years, Occu. Agri.,
Behind power house, Sailu
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani
3. Ashamati Namdev Kharat,
Age 60 years, Occu. Household,
Behind power house, Sailu
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani
4. Ashroba Raghoji Kale,
Age 60 years, Occu. Service,
r/o Sonna, Taluka Sailu,
District Parbhani .. Applicants
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Manwath Police Station, Manwath,
Taluka Manwath,
District Parbhani
2. Pradnya Yogesh Kharat,
Age 30 years, Occu. Housewife,
Panchavati colony, Manwath,
Taluka Manwath,
District Parbhani .. Respondents
Mr R.A. Nirmal, Advocate for applicants
Mrs V.N. Patil Jadhav, A.P.P. for respondent no.1
Mr B.S. Bhale, Advocate for respondent no.2
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
A.M. DHAVALE, JJ
DATE : 14th September 2017
Cri.Appln.5837/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Learned Counsel appearing for applicants seeks permission to
withdraw the application of applicant no.1 Yogesh Namdev Kharat.
Permission granted. Application of applicant no.1 Yogesh Namdev
Kharat is dismissed as withdrawn.
2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties,
matter is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that if the
allegations in the F.I.R. are taken at its face value and read in its
entirety, the alleged offence is not disclosed. No specific date of the
incident or specific incident has been quoted in the F.I.R. There are
general and vague allegations. It is submitted that applicants no.1
and respondent no. 2 resided at Surat. Applicant no.4 is residing at
village Sonna, Taluka Sailu, which is situated at considerable distance
from Sailu. It is submitted that even the applicants no. 2 to 3 resided
at Sailu. They are nothing to do with the allegations in the F.I.R. The
sum and substance of the argument of the learned Counsel for the
applicants is that there are no specific allegations in the F.I.R., which
would constitute the alleged offence and, therefore, F.I.R. may be
quashed.
4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned
Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submit that there are serious
allegations in the F.I.R. and, therefore, at the stage of investigation,
this Court may not accede to the prayer of the applicants for quashing
Cri.Appln.5837/2016
the F.I.R. Learned A.P.P. during the course of hearing submitted that
in the statements of the witnesses no any specific date or incident has
been mentioned. The contents of their statements are similar to the
contents of the F.I.R.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
applicants, learned A.P.P. for State and learned Counsel appearing for
respondent no.2 at length.
6. This Court (Coram : S.S. Shinde and Sangitrao S. Patil, JJ) has
already allowed the Criminal Application No.2970 of 2016 filed by the
co-accused (Dipak Dagdu Pandit Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
anr.) by order dated 3rd October 2016. In paragraphs no.6 to 8, it is
observed as follows :
"6. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
applicant, the learned A.P.P. appearing for respondent
no.1 and the learned Counsel appearing for respondent
no.2. With their able assistance, perused the averments
in the application, annexures thereto and the allegations
made in the F.I.R. So far a the present applicant, the
allegations in the F.I.R. are as under :
"fnid nxMw iaMhr] uanbZ jk- jkenkl uxj ijHk.kh] vkJksck
jk?kksth dkGs jk- lksUuk rk- lsyw ;kaps fo:/n fQ;kZn nsr vkgs rlsp usgeh
eyk thos ekj.;kph /kedh nsr vkgs rjh eyk ojhy yksdkauh rq fnlk;yk
cjkscj ukgh rqÖ;k oMhykauh yXukr oLrq fnY;k ukgh
?kj cka/kdkeklkBh ikp yk[k :i;s ?ksowu ;s ;k dkj.kko:u ekjgk.k d:u
Vkspwu cksywu 'kkfjjhd o ekufld NG dsyk vkgs-"
Cri.Appln.5837/2016
7. If the above referred allegations are perused
carefully, it appears that neither any specific date nor
any specific instance is mentioned. The said allegations
are general in nature. The applicant is residing at
Parbhani and serving as a Teacher. Therefore, keeping in
view the parameters laid down in the case of State of
Haryana and ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and ors., AIR
1992 SC 604, even if the allegations made in the F.I.R.
are taken at their face value, no offence is disclosed
against the applicant. As already observed, no specific
instance or specific date is mentioned in the F.I.R.
8. Considering the overall material on record, in our
view, the application deserves to be allowed."
9. For the same discussion and reasons, which are assigned in
paragraphs no.6 to 8 reproduced herenin above, in the order dated 3 rd
October 2016 passed in Criminal Application No.2970 of 2016 (Dipak
Dagdu Pandit Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr.), we are inclined
to allow the application of applicant no. 2 - Namdeo Nathaji Kharat,
applicant no.3 - Ashamati Namdev Kharat and applicant no.4 -
Ashroba Raghoji Kale.
10. Accordingly, Criminal Application filed by applicants no.2 to 4 is
allowed. The F.I.R. in Crime No. 125 of 2016 registered with Manwath
Police Station, Manwath, District Parbhani for the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, so far as the applicants no.2 to 4 are concerned, is
quashed and set set aside.
Cri.Appln.5837/2016
11. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no orders as to costs.
( A.M. DHAVALE, J.) ( S.S. SHINDE, J.)
vvr
