Bombay High Court
Angad S/O Rambahu Jadhavar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 February, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
1/5 11 Cri. WP-362.21 J (reasons).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.362 OF 2021
Angad S/o. Rambahu Jadhwar, ]
R/o. Om Sai Pant Krupa, Doctors ]
Colony, Gadhinglaj, District, ]
Kolhapur. ] ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra ]
(Through Additional Chief ]
Secretary (Home), Mantralaya, ]
Mumbai - 400 032). ]
2. Station House Officer, Police ]
Station Chandgarh, District ]
Kolhapur (Through Learned ]
Public Prosecutor, High Court of ]
Bombay.) ]
3. Arun s/o. Mukund Darekar, ]
R/o. Tadshinhal, Tal. Chandgadh, ]
Dist. Kolhapur, Maharashtra. ] ... Respondents
...
Mr. Jayesh Mestry for the petitioner.
Dr. F.R. Shaikh, A.P.P. for respondent-State.
...
AJN
::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2021 18:36:59 :::
2/5 11 Cri. WP-362.21 J (reasons).odt
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATED : 02ND FEBRUARY, 2021.
JUDGMENT :- [Per: Manish Pitale, J.]
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
the rival parties, heard finally.
2. The petitioner has approached this court by filing the
present writ petition with a prayer for quashing of FIR No.282 of
2020 dated 07/07/2020 for offences punishable under Sections
420, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC") registered
with Chandgadh Police Station, District Kolhapur.
3. A perusal of the aforesaid FIR would show that it has been
registered at the behest of respondent No.3 (original
complainant). The grievance of respondent No.3 is that a person
named as an accused in the said FIR viz. Ganesh Mahadev Phatak
had cheated respondent No.3 as he had taken a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- from him by claiming that he had contacts in
respondent No.2-Police Station, on the basis of which, he would
help removal of his name from the FIR No.237 of 2019 dated
11/11/2019 wherein the aforesaid respondent No.3 had been
named as an accused.
AJN
3/5 11 Cri. WP-362.21 J (reasons).odt
4. The aforesaid FIR dated 11/11/2019 was registered against
respondent No.3 and 5 others for allegedly having committed
offences under Sections 397, 364(A), 323, 324, 504 and 506 of
the IPC. According to respondent No.3, the aforesaid accused
person - Ganesh Mahadev Phatak had taken a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- and yet, his name was not removed from the FIR
dated 11/11/2019 and instead, charge-sheet dated 24/02/2020
was filed against respondent No.3 along with other accused
persons. On this basis, respondent No.3 has submitted a written
complaint dated 07/07/2020, as a result of which, the subject FIR
stood registered against Ganesh Mahadev Phatak.
5. It is an admitted position that the petitioner herein is not
named as an accused in the said FIR dated 07/07/2020 registered
at the behest of respondent No.3. Yet, the petitioner has
approached this court for quashing of the said FIR on the basis of
an apprehension that he is likely to be falsely implicated as an
accused in the said FIR. The said apprehension is based on an
assertion that respondent No.3 has an audio-clip in which the
aforesaid accused i.e. Ganesh Mahadev Phatak demanded the said
sum of Rs.2,00,000/- at the behest of the petitioner, who is a
superior police officer.
6. Mr. Mestry, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
AJN
4/5 11 Cri. WP-362.21 J (reasons).odt
submitted that there is every likelihood of the petitioner being
arraigned as an accused in the matter. It is further submitted that
the petitioner has been suspended from service by order dated
20/10/2020 on the basis of the aforesaid allegations levelled
against him. It is on this basis that the petitioner has approached
this court for quashing of the FIR.
7. Dr. Shaikh, learned A.P.P. appearing for respondent-State
submitted that the present petition is devoid of any merit because
a perusal of the FIR would show that the petitioner is not even
named as an accused and that there is no question of quashing of
FIR, at this stage.
8. We have perused the contents of the writ petition and we
have also heard learned counsel appearing for the rival parties.
9. It is evident from the material on record that the present
writ petition has been filed merely on an apprehension that the
petitioner is likely to be arraigned as an accused in the aforesaid
FIR. There is nothing to show that as of now the petitioner has
any reason to seek quashing of the FIR in which only the said
Ganesh Mahadev Phatak has been named as an accused.
10. We are of the opinion that the present writ petition is
wholly misconceived and it has been filed merely on an
AJN
5/5 11 Cri. WP-362.21 J (reasons).odt
apprehension which is not borne out by any substantial material
on record. Hence, we find that there is no merit in the present
writ petition. Accordingly, rule is discharged.
11. The writ petition is dismissed.
(MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)
AJN
