Bombay High Court
Rahul Parshuram Devkar 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-1316-2021 (J).doc
Vishwanath
Vishwanath S. Sherla
S. Sherla Date:
2021.03.18
18:16:16
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1316 OF 2021
1. Shri. Rahul Parshuram Devkar
Age- 40, Indian Inhabitant,
R/at. Vijayprabha CHS, Anudan
Niwas, Nehru Nagar, Pimpri,
Pune.
2. Shri. Mahesh Shamrao Manjalkar
Age- 32, Indian Inhabitant,
R/at. Manjalkar Chawl,
Nehru Nagar, Pimpri, Pune.
3. Shri. Vijay Dhanaji Pawar
Age- 40, Indian Inhabitant,
R/at, Anudan Niwas, Vijay Prabha
CHS Nehru Nagar, Pimpri, Pune.
4. Shri. Chikkya @ Mahesh Subhash Jadhav
Age- 33, Indian Inhabitant,
A/at. Choudhary Chawl, Behind Jyoti
English School, Nehru Nagar, Pimpri,
Pune.
5. Shri. Santosh Shankar Kattimani
Age-31, Indian Inhabitant,
R/at. Pragnya Vikas CHS,
Vitthal Nagar, Pimpri, Pune.
6. Shri. Sagar Namdev Tandale
Age- 30, Indian Inhabitant,
R/at. Vijayprabha CHS, Anudan
Niwas, Nehru Nagar, Pimpri, Pune.
7. Shri. Mangya @ Mangesh Sharad Kapure
Age- 36, Indian Inhabitant,
R/at. Near Jail Maharashtra Mitra Mandal,
Santoshi Mata Chowk, Nehru Nagar, Pimpri,
Pune.
Bhagyawant Punde
2/5 WP-1316-2021 (J).doc
8. Shri. Yuvraj Bhanudas Kamble
Age- 29, Indian Inhabitant,
R/at Nehru Nagar, Pimpri,
Chinchwad, Pune. ...PETITIONERS
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Pimpri Police Station.
2. Shri. Bansi Rangnath Jagdhane
Age- 30, Indian Inhabitant,
R/at. Near Krishna Mandir,
Gavlimatha, Bhosari, Pimpri,
Chinchwad, Pune. ...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Vaibhav Ugle for Petitioners.
Mr. S.R. Shinde, 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. 653 of 2020
registered with Pimpri Police Station for the offences punishable under
Sections 395, 141, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 427 of Indian Penal Code,
Section 4 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 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
Bhagyawant Punde
3/5 WP-1316-2021 (J).doc
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 395 of IPC is made out
against the Petitioners and the investigating officer vide its report dropped
Section 395 of IPC. It is submitted that the FIR is registered as counter blast
to the crime registered against son of Respondent No. 2 with Pimpri Police
Station. The allegations made in the subject FIR are without any substance
and continuing the further investigation would amount 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 cogent reasons stated in the reply, so as to
consider the prayer for quashing the impugned FIR on the basis of amicable
Bhagyawant Punde
4/5 WP-1316-2021 (J).doc
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 investigating officer was not justified
in deleting Section 395 of IPC. In fact, upon perusal of the allegations in the
FIR, there is an allegation that golden chain worn by the informant was
snatched and taken away by the accused. The accused persons with the help
of wooden logs caused damage to the vehicles. An alleged incident had
taken place at public place which in our opinion has impact upon the
society. Therefore, it is not proper to quash the FIR on the basis of alleged
settlement or on merits.
7. 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 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-1316-2021 (J).doc
8. 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. Hence, the writ petition stands
rejected.
9. We direct the Commissioner of Police, Pimpri-Chinchwad, to
cause inquiry of concerned investigating officer for not causing proper
investigation and casually deleting Section 395 of IPC from the FIR. The
Commissioner of Police, Pimpri-Chinchwad to submit report to this Court
within four weeks.
10. The Registry shall send copy of this order to the office of
Commissioner of Police, Pimpri-Chinchwad by the fastest mode of
communication.
11. The observations made herein above are prima facie in nature
and confined to the adjudication of the present writ petition only.
12. 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
