Dayalsingh Ramsingh Balode vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1469 Bom

 Judgment                                  1                                 apl370.18.odt




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


                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 370 OF 2018



 Dayalsingh Ramsingh Balode,
 Aged about 70 years, Occ.: Agriculturist
 & Brick Kiln, R/o. Telhara, Tq.Telhara,
 Dist. Akola.

                                                                     .... APPLICANT.

                                    // VERSUS //


 1.    State of Maharashtra,
       Through Police Station Officer,
       Police Station, Telhara,
       Tq. Telhara, Dist. Akola.

 2.    Omprakash Namdeo Verulkar,
       Talathi, Kheldeshpande,
       Tq. Telhara, Dist. Akola.
                                                             .... NON-APPLICANTS.
  ___________________________________________________________________
 Shri A.B.Mirza, Advocate for Applicant.
 Shri S.D.Sirpurkar, A.P.P. for Non-applicant No.1/State.
 Shri A.K.Dobade, Advocate for Non-applicant No.2.
 ___________________________________________________________________

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

DATED : JANUARY 21, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Z.A.Haq, J.)

1. Heard.

2. RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

Judgment 2 apl370.18.odt

3. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, the applicant-accused has prayed that the First Information

Report registered against him with the non-applicant No.1-Police Station for

the offence punishable under Section 379 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code be quashed.

4. The First Information Report is registered pursuant to the

report lodged by the non-applicant No.2. From the record it is clear that

there is civil dispute about title and possession of the agricultural land in

question between the applicant and Sau. Nayana Avinash Manatkar and

Regular Civil Suit No.56 of 2017 is pending before the trial Court. In the

civil suit, the trial Court has passed an order on 16 th October 2017 restraining

the defendant-Sau.Nayana Avinash Manatkar from causing obstruction in the

peaceful possession of the plaintiff (present applicant) over the suit property.

According to the applicant, after the order of temporary injunction came to

be passed, at the behest of Sau. Nayana Avinash Manatkar the non-applicant

No.2 swung into action and started taking illegal action against the applicant.

The accusations against the applicant, as per the report lodged against him,

are that bricks worth Rs.28,000/- were seized, however, the bricks were

stolen and therefore, the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian

Penal Code is committed by the applicant and the co-accused.

Judgment 3 apl370.18.odt

5. With the assistance of the learned Advocates for the applicant,

non-applicant No.2 and the learned A.P.P., we have gone through the report

lodged by the non-applicant No.2 and the other documents placed on record,

as also the reply filed on behalf of the non-applicant No.1.

6. In the reply it is stated that show cause notice was issued to the

applicant to deposit fine amount of Rs.1,22,680/-. However, copy of such

notice is not placed on record. At the time of hearing also the learned A.P.P.

has not produced any such demand notice. On the contrary, the learned

Advocate for the applicant pointed out that notice of demand of

Rs.1,22,680/- was issued to Sachin Dayalsingh Balode (son of the applicant)

on 2nd September 2017.

In the reply, it is further stated that the applicant had excavated

the land of Manatkar for making bricks and on the complaint of District

Mining Officer, the Tahsildar was asked to verify the issue of actual

possession. This statement in the written submissions filed on behalf of the

non-applicant No.1/Investigating Agency supports the claim of the applicant

that the action against the applicant is being taken at the behest of Manatkar

after the Civil Court passed order granting temporary injunction in favour of

the applicant.

Judgment 4 apl370.18.odt

7. Be that as it may, we find that the accusations made against the

applicant and the other material placed on record do not show the

ingredients necessary to constitute offence punishable under Section 379 of

the Indian Penal Code. We are of the view that continuation of the criminal

proceedings against the applicant, who is aged about 72 years, will be

nothing but abuse of process of the Court.

8. Hence, we pass the following order:

First Information Report bearing No.278 of 2017, dated 22 nd

November 2017, registered with non-applicant No.1-Police Station for the

offence punishable under Sections 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code is

quashed.

Rule is made absolute accordingly.

                             (AMIT B. BORKAR, J)                       (Z.A.HAQ, J)


RRaut..