Amritpalsingh Baldeosingh ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2327 Bom

                                             1                              28-apl-1070-18j.odt



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

              CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1070 OF 2018

  Amritpalsingh Baldeosingh Dalleke,
  Aged about 48 years, Occ. Business,
  R/o. GTB Nagar, Nagpur Road,
  Padoli Kosara, Chandrapur,
  Dist. Chandrapur.                                                       . . . APPLICANT

                         ...V E R S U S..

  1. State of Maharashtra through
     Police Station Officer,
     Police Station Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.

  2. Tushar Chandrashekhar Padgilwar,
     Aged 45 years, Occ. Business,
     R/o. Plot No. 115, Bajaj Nagar,
     Nagpur 440 010.                                              . . NON-APPLICANTS

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri Anil A. Dhawas, Advocate for applicant.
 Shri T. A. Mirza, A.P. P. for non-applicant no. 1/State.
 Ms. Kirti Deshpande, Advocate h/f. Shri Rajnish Vyas, Advocate for
 non-applicant no. 2.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               CORAM :- Z. A. HAQ AND
                                        AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED :- 04.02.2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) :-

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2 28-apl-1070-18j.odt

3. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure challenging the First Information Report (FIR) No.

248/2018 registered with the non-applicant no. 1-Police Station for the

offence punishable under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The FIR came to be registered against the applicant and

another with the accusations that the applicant by engaging some

other persons set on fire the vehicle owned by the non-applicant no. 2.

It is alleged that in the CCTV footage, there is no clear picture of the

person, who set the vehicle of the non-applicant no.2 on fire. In the

FIR, the non-applicant no. 2 has expressed apprehension that the

applicant alongwith another person must have set the vehicle of the

non-applicant no. 2 on fire.

5. The applicant has therefore filed the present application,

challenging registration of the FIR against him. This Court on

25.02.2019 issued notice for final disposal and in the meantime

directed that charge-sheet shall not be filed against the applicant. The

non-applicant no. 1 has filed reply and has stated that during the

course of the investigation, the statement of the witnesses were

recorded and the CCTV footage has been seized and there is no clear

picture of the person, who had set on fire the vehicle owned by the

3 28-apl-1070-18j.odt

non-applicant no. 2. It is also stated that the person, who put the

vehicle on fire is yet to be identified.

6. The non-applicant no. 2 has also filed his reply and has

stated that there is dispute regarding the property between the non-

applicant no. 2 and the applicant. To take revenge for the property

dispute between the non-applicant no. 2 and the applicant, the

applicant has set on fire the vehicle owned by the non-applicant no. 2.

7. We have carefully considered the contents of the FIR. From

the FIR, it appears that the non-applicant no. 2 has expressed only

apprehension about possible role of the applicant in causing the vehicle

of the non-applicant no. 2 on fire through some other persons. The

allegations made in the FIR are in respect of the one Sandip

Choudhary, who previously threatened to set the vehicle of the non-

applicant no. 2 on fire and there was complaint filed by the non-

applicant no. 2 to that effect. From the accusations in the FIR and

from the reply filed by the non-applicant no. 1-Investigating Agency,

there is no material on record to fulfill ingredients of offence alleged

against the applicant. The allegations in the FIR against the applicant

are vague in nature. The accusations made in the FIR are not

sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 435 of the

Indian Penal Code. We are therefore satisfied that continuation of the

4 28-apl-1070-18j.odt

prosecution against the applicant would amount to abuse of process of

Court.

8. We therefore pass the following order:-

First Information Report No. 248/2018 registered with the

non-applicant no. 1-Police Station for the offence punishable under

Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

                JUDGE                                           JUDGE

 RR Jaiswal