Sunil S/O Balaram Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3647 Bom

 Judgment                                     1                                  apl223.15.odt




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                    CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 223/2015


          Sunil S/o Balaram Patil,
          Aged about 42 years, Occ. Member,
          Secretary, Maharashtra Gandhi Smarak Nidhi,
          A Public Trust registered under the Bombay Public
          Trusts Act, 1950, R/o. 349/2, Kasturba Bhavan,
          Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur, District Nagpur

                                                                          .... APPLICANT

                                        // VERSUS //

 1]       The State of Maharashtra,
          Through Police Station Officer,
          Police Station Ambazari, Nagpur
          District Nagpur

 2]       Shri Wasudeo S/o Fattudeo Zelgode ,
          Aged about 59 years, Occ. Service
          R/o. Plot No. 7, Ambanagar, Near
          Siddheswar Nagar, New Dighori,
          Nagpur
                                                               .... NON-APPLICANT(S)

  *******************************************************************
               Shri S.S. Dhengale, Advocate for the applicant
               Shri T.A. Mirza, APP for the non-applicant no. 1
            Shri S.M. Nafde, Advocate for the non-applicant no. 2
  *******************************************************************

                               CORAM : Z.A.HAQ & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

FEBRUARY 26, 2021

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

1] Heard.

 ANSARI




  Judgment                                     2                                apl223.15.odt




 2]               By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, the applicant has challenged registration of the first information

report bearing Crime No. 107/2015 dated 17/03/2015 registered with the

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

Sections 457, 448, 454 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code.

3] The first information report came to be registered against the

applicant with the accusations that on 03/03/2015 when the executive

member of the managing committee of the trust of the non-applicant no. 2

went at the premises in question, it was noticed that the lock of the said

premises was changed and board of the trust of the non-applicant no. 2 was

removed. It is also alleged that the articles of the non-applicant no. 2 were

removed from the said premises. It is also alleged that the worth of the

articles in the said premises was to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The first

information report came to be registered against the applicant with the

accusations that the applicant had taken forcible possession of the premises

of the trust of the non-applicant no. 2 and has committed theft of the articles

lying in the said premises.

4] The applicant has challenged registration of the first

information report by filing the present application. This Court on

06/10/2015 issued Rule in the present case and granted interim relief

ANSARI

Judgment 3 apl223.15.odt

staying the effect, operation and execution of the impugned first information

report.

5] The non-applicant no. 1 has filed reply and has stated that the

report came to be lodged against the applicant with the accusations that the

applicant has committed theft of the articles in the premises which was in

possession of the non-applicant no. 2 and has also taken illegal forcible

possession of the said premises. It is stated that the trust of the non-applicant

no. 2 was functioning since last 25 to 40 years and the non-applicant no. 2

was in possession of the said premises. It is also stated that as per the

statement of the non-applicant no. 2, the applicant has taken possession of

the said premises in his capacity as the Secretary of the trust. It is also stated

that the applicant was not co-operating with the Investigating Agency and

the physical custody of the applicant was necessary.

6] The non-applicant no. 2 has filed reply and has stated that the

applicant has committed theft of the articles of the non-applicant no. 2 and

has taken forcible possession of the said premises which was in possession of

the trust of the non-applicant no. 2 for last 35 to 40 years.

7] Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that there was

dispute between two groups of the said trust and the non-applicant no. 2 has

delivered voluntary possession of the premises in dispute on 03/12/2014. It

ANSARI

Judgment 4 apl223.15.odt

is submitted that since the possession of the said premises was voluntarily

handed over to the applicant, applicant filed an application for withdrawal of

the suit.

8] We have carefully considered the contents of the first

information report and the replies filed by the non-applicants.

9] Learned APP has placed on record the statements of the

witnesses. From the statements of the witnesses, prima-facie, it appears that

the applicant has taken possession of the premises without following the due

process of law. Whether the applicant has committed theft of the articles and

whether has taken illegal possession of the premises of the trust of the non-

applicant no. 2 is a matter investigation.

10] The Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly sounded note of caution

to the effect that the power of quashing criminal proceedings should be

exercised very sparingly and with circumspection that too in the rarest of

rare case. In emphatic words, it has been laid down that the Court would

not be justified in embarking as an inquiry as to reliability, genuineness or

otherwise of the allegations made in the first information report and that the

inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act

according to its whims or caprice. The power can be exercised only when the

Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there

ANSARI

Judgment 5 apl223.15.odt

would be abuse of process of the Court and not otherwise. It is not open for

the Court in exercise of such powers to scrutinize the allegations by sifting

the evidence or appreciate the same and come to the conclusion that no

prima facie case is made out or whether the allegations are likely to be up-

held in the trial.

11] From the allegations in the first information report and the

material produced by the non-applicant no. 1, we are of the view that at this

stage, the first information report registered against the applicant cannot be

quashed. In case after the completion of investigation, the Investigating

Agency comes to the conclusion that there is no material against the

applicant, then charge-sheet need not be filed against the applicant. At this

stage, we cannot go into the question of veracity of the allegations made in

the first information report and truthfulness of the statements recorded by

the prosecution. Therefore, we are satisfied that the first information report

registered against the applicant need not be quashed at this stage.

12] Hence, the criminal application is dismissed.

                  JUDGE                                      JUDGE




 ANSARI