Sunil S/O Babusingh Daberao And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Police ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 16027 Bom

                                               1                                32-apl-367-21j.odt



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 367 OF 2021

 1. Sunil S/o. Babusingh Daberao,
    Aged about 51 years, Occ. Service,

 2. Sharda W/o. Sunil Daberao,
    Aged about 45 years, Occ. Teacher,

      Both R/o. Vrundawan Nagar,
      Murtizapur, Tah. Murtizapur,
      District Akola.                                                       . . . APPLICANTS

                       ...V E R S U S..

 1. State of Maharashtra through
    Police Station Officer,
    Police Station Murtizapur,
    District- Akola.

 2. Rajesh S/o. Wasudevrao Bhugul,
    Aged about 45 years, Occ. Service,
    R/o. Ganesh Nagar, Murtizapur,
    Tah. Murtizapur, Dist. Akola.                                   . . . NON-APPLICANTS

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri A. M. Tirukh, Advocate for applicants.
 Shri S. S. Doifode, A.P.P. for non-applicant no. 1/State.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  CORAM:- M. S. SONAK AND
                          PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.

DATED:- 18.11.2021

JUDGMENT (PER: M. S. SONAK, J.):-

1. Heard Shri A. M. Tirukh, learned counsel for the

applicants, and Shri S. S. Doifode, learned A.P.P. for non-applicant no.

2 32-apl-367-21j.odt

1/State. The non-applicant no. 2 though served but, neither present

nor represented.

2. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. This is an application seeking quashing of the First

Information Report (FIR) dated 04.02.2021 vide Crime No. 49/2021

alleging commission of an offense under Section 363 read with Section

34 of the Indian Penal Code by the applicants. This FIR is registered at

Police Station Murtizapur, Dist. Akola based on the complaint lodged

by the non-applicant no. 2.

4. The FIR alleges the commission of the aforesaid offense by

Suyash Daberao, son of the two applicants as well as the two

applicants before us. This application is however taken out by only the

two applicants i.e. the parents of said Suyash.

5. The complaint/FIR was lodged by the non-applicant no. 2,

who is the father of the victim girl alleging that Suyash, who is a friend

of his victim daughter, committed sexual assault on her after

kidnapping her. The allegations are almost entirely against Suyash i.e.

son of the present applicants and there are no serious allegations

against the present applicants. Only towards the conclusion of the

3 32-apl-367-21j.odt

complaint, there is a stray sentence that the applicants along with their

son Suyash have enticed the victim girl and thereby kidnapped her.

6. On behalf of the non-applicant no. 1/State, the reply has

been filed, in which, it is stated that after the registration of the FIR,

the Investigating Agency recorded the statement of the complainant

(non-applicant no. 2), prepared spot panchnama, and further recorded

the statement of the victim girl under Section 161 as well as Section

164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The affidavit states that

statement of the victim girl does not support the prosecution case.

7. According to us, the main allegations are against Suyash,

the son of the applicants. The complaint is lodged against Suyash, who

is alleged to have enticed, kidnapped, and committed sexual assault

on the non-applicant no. 2's daughter. The daughter, in her statement,

has not supported this version but, even if this aspect is excluded and

the allegations in the FIR are taken at their face value, we feel that this

is an attempt to unnecessarily rope in the present applicants based on

a very stray and casual statement that the applicants had also enticed

the daughter along with Suyash. In the complaint, which is in Marathi,

the allegations are that the applicants instigated the victim girl and

then kidnapped her. Based on such a vague statement, bereft of any

particulars whatsoever, we feel that continuance of prosecution against

4 32-apl-367-21j.odt

the present applicants, who are stated to be Government Servants will

amount to an abuse of process. This would be the position even if we

exclude from consideration the statement in the reply filed by the State

that the allegedly kidnapped daughter is denying this version of the

non-applicant no.2-complainant and thereby not supporting the

prosecution version.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, we quash the impugned FIR

dated 04.02.2021 vide Crime No. 49/2021 registered at Police Station

Murtizapur, Dist. Akola qua the present applicants. We clarify that the

FIR is not quashed qua Suyash, who in any case, is not the applicant

before us in this proceeding.

9. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall

be no order as to costs.

                      (PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.)                (M. S. SONAK, J.)




RR Jaiswal