Bombay High Court
Aashish Bansi Jagdhane And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 12 March, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
Digitally
signed by 1/5 WP-1317-2021 (J) .doc
Vishwanath
Vishwanath S. Sherla
S. Sherla Date:
2021.03.18
18:16:17
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1317 OF 2021
1. Shri. Aashish Bansi Jagdhane
Age- 32, Indian Inhabitant,
R/at. Shrikrishna Mandir, Gavlimatha,
Telco Road, Bhosari, Pune.
2. Shri. Irfan Yunus Shaikh
Age- 29, Indian Inhabitant,
R/at. Dwarka Platinum, Flat No. A/1
Near Bank of Maharashtra,
Bhosari, Pune.
3. Shri. Jitesh Madhukar Manjule
Age- 28, Indian Inhabitant,
R/at. Parvati Nivas, Manjule Chawl,
Near Bhagwat geeta, Kharalwadi,
Pimpri, Pune.
4. Shri. Javed Nisar Auty
Age- 29, Indian Inhabitant,
R/at. Shanbhuraje Colony, Bhosari,
Pune.
5. Shri.Aakash Bhikaji Hajare
Age- 28, Indian Inhabitant,
R/at. 114/2, Sahog Colony, Nadhe Nagar,
Kalewadi, Pune. ...PETITIONERS
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Pimpri Police Station.
2. Shri. Nilesh Subhash Jadhav
Age- 35, Indian Inhabitant,
R/at. Chaudhari Chawl, Behind Jyoti
English School, Nehru Nagar, Pimpri,
Pune. ...RESPONDENTS
...
Bhagyawant Punde
2/5 WP-1317-2021 (J) .doc
Mr. Vaibhav Ugle for Petitioners.
Dr. F.R Shaikh, APP for State.
Mr. Sujit Bugde, for Respondent No. 2.
...
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATE : 12th MARCH, 2021.
JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:
. This petition takes an exception to the FIR No. 652 of 2020
registered with Pimpri Police Station for the offences punishable under
Sections 307, 141, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 427 of Indian Penal Code,
Section 4 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959, Section 3 and 7 of Prevention of
Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, and Section 37 (1) and 135 of
Bombay Police Act, 1951.
2. It is submitted that the parties have amicably settled the
dispute, therefore, on the basis of alleged settlement the FIR may be
quashed. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in the alternate
submits that even on merits the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the
allegations levelled by Respondent No. 2 against the petitioners are due to
political vendetta. During the course of investigation the investigating officer
came to the conclusion that no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out
Bhagyawant Punde
3/5 WP-1317-2021 (J) .doc
against the Petitioners and the investigating officer vide its report dropped
Section 307 of IPC. It is submitted that the FIR is registered as counter blast
to the complaint registered against the second respondent and other accused
on 31st October 2020 with Pimpri Police Station bearing FIR No. 653 of
2020. The allegations made in the subject FIR are without any substance
and continuing the further investigation would tantamount to the abuse of
the process of law.
4. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 invited our
attention to the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent and submits that the
parties have amicably settled the dispute, therefore, the impugned FIR may
be quashed.
5. We have carefully perused the averments in the affidavit filed
by Respondent No.2. There is no any cogent reasons stated in the affidavit,
so as to consider the prayer for quashing the impugned FIR on the basis of
amicable settlement. It is only mentioned in the affidavit that there is no
objection for quashing the FIR.
6. We have carefully considered the allegations in the FIR and we
are of the prima facie opinion that the allegations in the FIR are very serious
in nature. The alleged incident had taken place at about 93.0 p.m. The
Bhagyawant Punde
4/5 WP-1317-2021 (J) .doc
accused were carrying deadly weapons like chopper, bat, wooden logs,
sword and scythe. It is alleged that the accused assaulted the informant by
sword, however, the informant managed to escape from the said attack. It
appears that informant was assaulted all over the body.
7. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners
that Section 307 IPC has been deleted by the investigating officer. In our
prima facie opinion, keeping in view the serious allegations in the FIR,
Section 307 of IPC could not have been deleted by the Investigating Officer.
The alleged offence had taken at public place during night time, which in
our opinion has great impact upon society. Therefore, it is not appropriate to
quash the FIR on the basis of alleged settlement or on merits.
8. The Supreme Court in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh
Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others1 observed that while considering the prayer
for quashing the FIR on the basis of settlement, the stage of the
investigation should be taken into consideration and the investigating officer
should be allowed to complete the investigation. The offences alleged in the
present impugned FIR are also serious in nature and therefore, it is
necessary to allow the investigating officer to complete the investigation.
1 (2019) 5 SCC 688
Bhagyawant Punde
5/5 WP-1317-2021 (J) .doc
9. Therefore, the prayer of the Petitioners to quash the impugned
FIR on the basis of alleged settlement stands rejected. Even otherwise on
merits the impugned FIR cannot be quashed. The writ petition stands
rejected.
10. We direct the Commissioner of Police, Pimpri-Chinchwad, to
cause inquiry of concerned investigating officer for not causing proper
investigation and casually deleting Section 307 of IPC from the FIR. The
Commissioner of Police, Pimpri-Chinchwad to submit report to this Court
within four weeks.
11. The Registry shall send copy of this order to the office of
Commissioner of Police, Pimpri-Chinchwad by the fastest mode of
communication.
12. The observations made herein above are prima facie in nature
and confined to the adjudication of the present writ petition only.
13. List the matter on 22nd April 2021 under the caption 'For
Compliance' of directions to the Commissioner of Police, Pimpri-Chinchwad.
( MANISH PITALE, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.)
Bhagyawant Punde
