Smt. Usha Mohan Motghare vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3960 Bom

                                                                         1                        Cr.APL No.146.16-J

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

                    CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.146 OF 2016

           Smt. Usha Mohan Motghare,
           Age : 54 yrs., Occ. - House wife,
           R/o. Mangaldip Nagar - 2,
           Manewada Besa Road, Nagpur,
           Dist. : Nagpur. Mobile No.                                                           ....APPLICANT


                                         ----- VERSUS -----


  1.       State of Maharashtra,
           Through its Secretary,
           Ministry of Home Department,
           Mantralaya, Madam Kama Road,
           Mumbai - 32.

  2.       B. M. Totewad,
           Age - Adult, Occ.- Service-
           Police Sub-Inspector,
           O/o. - Police Station Hudkeshwar,
           Nagpur.

  3.       Police Inspector,
           Hudkeshwar Police Station,
           Nagpur, Dist.: Nagpur.

  4.       Vishal Janbaji Choudhary,
           Age : Adult,
           R/o. Mangaldip Nagar -2,
           Manewada Besa Road,
           Nagpur.                                                                  .... NON-APPLICANTS


  Shri N. S. Rao, A.P.P. for the non-applicant No.1 and 3/State.
  _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



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

                         DATE            :       03.03.2021.







 ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER: AMIT B. BORKAR, J.]

  1.                Heard.

2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the applicant has challenged registration of the

First Information Report No.541/2015 dated 07.12.2015 registered

with the non-applicant No.3 - Police Station for the offences

punishable under Sections 294, 506, 143 and 149 of the Indian

Penal Code.

3. The First Information Report came to be registered

against the applicant and others with the accusations that the

applicant and others had abused the non-applicant No.4 and

assaulted the non-applicant No.4. In the report, the non-applicant

No.4 has stated that the applicant alongwith 10 to 15 other persons

had abused the non-applicant No.4. The applicant has therefore,

challenged registration of the First Information Report by filing the

present application.

4. This Court on 06.04.2016 issued notice to the non-

applicants and on 23.01.2017, issued Rule and granted Ad interim

relief in terms of prayer clause (ii).

5. The non-applicant No.3 has filed reply and has stated

that Investigating Officer has recorded statements of non-applicant

No.4 and other persons who were present on the date of incident

and they have stated that the applicant and others had abused the

non-applicant No.4 and also thrown stones on the non-applicant

No.4.

6. We have carefully considered the allegation in the First

Information Report alongwith material produced by the applicant.

From the material produced by the applicant, it appears that the

applicant and others had filed the First Information Report on

06.12.2015 against the non-applicant No.4 under the provisions of

the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act of 1989") and other

offences under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The

impugned First Information Report is registered on 07.12.2015. We

have perused the statements of witnesses recorded by the

Investigating Officer. After careful perusal of the statements of

witnesses, we are satisfied that the statements are recorded

mechanically without changing even a word. In each statement, the

each witness have stated names of 31 persons which appears to be

unbelievable. The material averments in the statement of witnesses

are same and are parrot like. On perusal of the statements of

witnesses, we are satisfied that it is inherently improbable for every

witness to remember names of 31 accused and to state exactly same

words which are allegedly stated by the applicant and others.

7. On over all consideration of the accusations in the First

Information Report, in the light of First Information Report lodged

by the applicant against the non-applicant No.4 under the

provisions of the Act of 1989, and considering mechanical statement

of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer, we are satisfied

that the report lodged by the non-applicant No.4 is not legitimate

prosecution. We are therefore, satisfied that to secure the ends of

justice, the First Information Report lodged against the applicant

used to be quashed and set aside.

8. We therefore, pass the following order.

The First Information Report No.541/2015 dated

07.12.2015 registered with the non-applicant No.3 - Police Station

for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506, 143 and 149 of

the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

                                          JUDGE                           JUDGE
RGurnule