Bombay High Court
Shri. Prashant S/O Manoharrao ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 5 January, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
1 Cr.APL No.645.13J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 645 OF 2013
1. Shri Prashant s/o Manoharrao Bongirwar,
Aged about 44 Years, Occupation : Business,
R/o. 11 - A, Khare Town, Dharampeth,
Nagpur.
2. Smt. Vrushali w/o Prashant Bongirwar,
Aged about : 40 Years, Occupation : Business,
R/o. 11 - A, Khare Town, Dharampeth,
Nagpur.
3. Shri Raju s/o Laxmikant Itkelwar,
Aged about : 48 Years, Occupation : Business,
R/o. Dhantoli, Nagpur.
4. Smt. Sunita w/o Manoj Itkelwar,
Aged about : 40 Years, Occupation : Dentist,
R/o. Rahate Colony Square,
Wardha Road, Nagpur.
5. Smt. Manisha w/o Atul Yemsanwar,
Aged about : Years, Occupation : Business,
R/o. 33, Khare Town, Dharampeth,
Nagpur.
6. Shri Atul s/o Manoharrao Yemsanwar,
Aged about : 50 Years, Occupation : Business,
R/o. 33, Khare Town, Dharampeth,
Nagpur. ....APPLICANTS
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra
Through P. S. O. Sonegaon,
Distr. Nagpur.
2. Smt. Usha w/o Arjunrao Shinde,
Aged about : 54 Years, Occup. Agriculturist,
R/o. Juni Shukrawari, Tah. & Dist. Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 18:22:50 :::
2 Cr.APL No.645.13J
3. Shri Laxmikant s/o Babarao Masirkar,
Aged about : Major, Occup. Service,
R/o. Juni Shukrawari, Tah. & Dist. Nagpur.
4. Shri Sanjay s/o Maroti Kowe,
Aged about : 43 Years, Occupation : Service,
R/o. 104, K.G.H. Society,
Katol Road, Nagpur. .... NON-APPLICANTS
Shri S. K. Mishra, Senior Advocate with Shri A. H. Mishra, Advocate
for the applicants.
Shri T. A. Mirza, A.P.P. for the non-applicant No.1/State.
Shri C. S. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for non-applicant Nos.2 and 3.
Shri J. M. Gandhi, Advocate for non-applicant No.4.
___________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z. A. HAQ AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : 05.01.2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER: Z. A. HAQ, J.]
1. Heard.
2. At the time of filing of this application under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants had prayed
that First Information Report No.161 of 2012 registered on the
report lodged by the non-applicant No.4 - Sanjay Maroti Kowe, and
First Information Report No. 17 of 2013 registered pursuant to
lodging of the report by the non-applicant No.2 Smt. Usha Arjunrao
Shinde and non-applicant No.3 - Laxmikant Babarao Masirkar be
quashed.
3. At the time of hearing, it is pointed out that in the
report lodged by the non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 (Smt. Usha and
Laxmikant), there was no reference of the names of the applicant
Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and the accusations were against the applicant
nos. 3 and 6 and some other persons. During the pendency of this
Criminal Application before this Court, charge-sheet came to be
filed before the Trial Court vide Criminal Case No. 85 of 2014 and
in the charge-sheet, the applicant Nos. 1 to 5 are not shown as
accused and only the applicant No.6 alongwith some other persons
is shown as accused. Hence, as far as the grievance of the applicant
Nos. 1 to 5 in respect of their impleadment in the proceedings of
First Information Report No.17 of 2013 is concerned, in our view, at
this stage, there is no occasion for this Court to entertain the
grievance of the applicant Nos.1 to 5 under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure.
4. Shri C. S. Dharmadhikari, learned Advocate for the
non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that because of the pendency
of this criminal application before this Court, and the interim order,
the non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 have not been able to move
appropriate application before the Trial Court for inclusion of the
names of the applicant Nos.1 to 5 in the array of the accused.
5. As recorded earlier, we are not dealing with the
grievance of the applicant Nos.1 to 5 in respect of the proceedings
pursuant to First Information Report No. 17 of 2013. Hence, we
leave it to the parties to avail appropriate remedy before
appropriate forum, as per law.
6. As far as the grievance of the applicant No.6 in respect
of the proceedings pursuant to First Information Report No.17 of
2013 is concerned, we find that there are no accusations against the
applicant No.6, prima facie, on the basis of which he can be shown
as accused in the charge-sheet filed in the matter. Hence, in our
view, this is a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent the abuse of process of
Court. Therefore, First Information Report No. 17 of 2013 and the
consequential charge-sheet bearing Criminal Case No. 85 of 2014
filed against the applicant No.6 - Atul Manoharrao Yemsanwar are
quashed.
7. In respect of the First Information Report No. 161 of
2012 which is registered pursuant to the report lodged by the non-
applicant No.4 - Sanjay Maroti Kowe, at the time of hearing, it is
pointed out that the charge-sheet vide Criminal Case No. 84 of 2014
is filed before the Trial Court and the names of the applicant Nos. 1
to 5 are not included in the array of the accused. Hence, there is no
occasion for this Court to examine the grievance of the applicant
Nos.1 to 5, at this stage.
8. Needless to say that it would be open for the non-
applicant No.4 - Sanjay Maroti Kowe to avail appropriate remedy, if
he is aggrieved by the action of the non-applicant No.1 - Police
Station Officer in not including the names of applicant Nos. 1 to 5 in
the array of the accused.
9. In respect of the applicant No.6, Shri S. K. Mishra,
learned Senior Advocate, on instructions, requested for permission
to withdraw the Criminal Application and move appropriate
application before the Trial Court for discharge at appropriate stage.
The request is granted.
10. The Criminal Application is disposed accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
RGurnule
