Bombay High Court
Vijay S/O Motilal Joshi And 3 ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Pso ... on 4 January, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
Judgment 1 apl224.12.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 224 OF 2012
1. Vijay s/O. Motilal Joshi,
Aged 40 years, Occ. : Bhel Bhandar,
2. Sau. Sangita W/o. Vijay Joshi,
(Before Marriage Ku. Sangita D/o.
Ratanlalji Tiwari)
Aged : 35, Occ.: House hold.
3. Vinod S/o.Motilal Joshi,
Aged : 35, Occu.: Bhel Bhandar,
No. 1 to 3 R/o. Guru Nagar, Near Janata
High School, Ward No.5, Wani, Tq. Wani,
Dist. Yavatmal.
4. Rajesh S/o. Balaji Rajurkar,
Aged 40 years, Occu.: Electrician,
R/o. Near ICICI Bank, Kannamwar Chowk,
Wani, Tq. Wani, District : Yavatmal.
.... APPLICANTS.
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O.
Police Station Wani, Dist. Yavatmal
Vide Crime No.203/2011.
2. Kalpana W/o. Kunjbihari Sharma,
Age 45, Occ: House Hold,
R/o. Kunjbihari Sharma,
Qtr. No.D-45, Sirpur-Kagaznagar,
Dist. Aadilabad A.P. Pin Code 504296.
.... NON-APPLICANTS.
::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 15:42:01 :::
Judgment 2 apl224.12.odt
___________________________________________________________________
Shri A.K.Bhangde, Advocate for Applicants.
Shri T.A.Mirza, A.P.P. for Non-applicant No.1/State.
None for Non-applicant No.2.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ AND AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED : JANUARY 04, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Z.A.Haq, J.)
1. Office note shows that report of service of notice of this
Criminal Application on non-applicant No.2(informant) is awaited. Docket
shows that the notice of this Criminal Application was served on the non-
applicant No.2(informant) before Rule came to be issued, however, the
report of service of notice of this Criminal Application on the non-applicant
No.2 after issuance of Rule is awaited.
2. In our view, once the notice is served on a party, it is not
required that repeated invitations should be sent by the Court to the non-
applicants/respondents. The purpose of service of notice on the party/parties
is that the concerned party/parties should have intimation about pendency of
the matter against it before this Court. Hence, we treat that the non-
applicant No.2(informant) is aware about pendency of these proceedings and
proceed further. One more fact, which is required to be stated is that the
interim order is operating in these proceedings since 4 th May 2012.
Judgment 3 apl224.12.odt
3. Heard learned Advocate for the applicants/accused and the
learned A.P.P. for the non-applicant No.1/State.
4. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the applicants/accused have prayed that the F.I.R. registered
against them with the non-applicant No.1-Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 394 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code be quashed.
The facts on record show that the non-applicant No.2(informant) lodged
report alleging that because of the matrimonial dispute between the
applicant and Sau. Kalavati Vijaykumar Joshi (wife of applicant No.1), some
dispute arose on 4th January 2011 and the informant was assaulted by Rajesh
Rajurkar (applicant No.4) which resulted in loss of three teeth of the
informant. In the report it is alleged that the applicant No.2-Sau. Sangeeta
took away Rs.1,000/- from the purse of the informant and also snatched
Mangalsutra worth about Rs.20,000/- and gold bangles worth about
Rs.40,000/- and for this the applicant No.4-Rajesh and applicant No.3-Vinod
also were involved. Initially, the non-applicant No.1-Police Station Officer
had not registered F.I.R., however, the non-applicant No.2 approached this
Court vide Criminal Writ Petition No. 517 of 2011 in which an order came to
be passed on 15th November 2011 recording the submission made on behalf
of the non-applicant No.1-Police Station Officer that the F.I.R. would be
registered. Accordingly, the First Information Report came to be registered
against the applicants on 17th November 2011.
Judgment 4 apl224.12.odt
5. With the assistance of the learned Advocate for the applicants
and the learned A.P.P., we have examined documents placed on record. Along
with the final report filed by the Investigating Agency, a copy of medical
examination report of the informant is placed on record which shows that,
according to the history of the patient she was assaulted by Rajesh Rajurkar
(applicant No.4) about 10 months back, which resulted in some injury. The
medical examination report further shows that the center teeth were not
found at the time of examination.
6. Undisputedly, there has been earlier report by the applicant
No.1-Vijay against his wife Sau. Kalavati and against Radheshyam Ramratan
Sharma and Kunjbihari Ramratan Sharma (brothers of Sau. Kalpana) and
Kunjbihari Ramratan Sharma (husband of present non-applicant No.2-
informant).
7. Record further shows that the proceedings under Section 13(1)
(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act were filed by applicant No.1-Vijay against his
wife Sau. Kalavati.
8. Considering the material on record, we find that there is no
explanation by the non-applicant No.2-informant for the delay of more than
10 months in pursuing the matter with the Police Authorities. Undisputedly,
there being history of matrimonial litigation, we have examined the material
on record with circumspection and we find that the accusations against the
Judgment 5 apl224.12.odt
applicants are not sufficient to prosecute them for the offences alleged
against them.
9. Hence, the following order:
First Information Report bearing Crime No.203 of 2011,
registered with Police Station, Wani, District : Yavatmal against the applicants
is quashed.
Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(AMIT B. BORKAR, J) (Z.A.HAQ, J)
RRaut..
