Abhijit S/O Rajendra Chaunapure ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Its ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8243 Bom

                                                    1             921-J-APL-255-20.odt

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
               CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 255 OF 2020
1. Abhijit S/o. Rajendra Chaunapure,
   Age : 30 Years, Occu. : Business,
   R/o. At Post Pathardi, Tq. Pathardi,
   Dist. Ahmednagar.

2. Shankar S/o. Shridhar Raut,
   Age : 52 Years, Occu.: Business,
   R/o 238/8, Kasar Galli, A.P. Pathardi,
   Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar.

3. Somnath S/o. Shashikant Rodi,
   Age : 45 years, Occu. Business,
   R/o 98/6, Rangar Galli, A. P. Pathardi,
   Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar.                                ... APPLICANTS
                                                                    (Original Accused)
                              VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra
   Through its Investigation Officer
   Khadan Police Station, Akola,
   Tq. & District - Akola.

     (Copy to be served on Public Prosecutor,
     High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench
     at Nagpur)

2. Sou. Anju W/o Pankaj Bafna
   Age : 22 years, Occu. Housewife,
   R/o C/o Pralhad Shaligram Dange,
   Kothari Watika, Malkapur, Akola,
   Tq. & Dist. Akola
   Mob. No. 7448153214.                                      ... RESPONDENTS
                                                               (Ori. Complainant)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Jasprit Singh Chilotra, Advocate for applicants.
Shri I. J. Damle, Additional Public Prosecutor for Non-applicant No.1.
Ms. Ragini K. Swami, Advocate h/f Shri R. M. Tahaliyani, Advocate for
Non-applicant No.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        2          921-J-APL-255-20.odt

                       CORAM:- MANISH PITALE AND
                                VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ.

DATED :- 23/08/2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER MANISH PITALE, J.) :

1. Heard.

2. ADMIT. Heard finally with the consent of learned

counsel appearing for the parties.

3. By this application, the applicants are seeking quashing

of FIR No.0708/2019 dated 24/12/2019, registered at Police

Station, Khadan, Akola, insofar as they are concerned. By the said

FIR, offence has been registered against all the accused persons

for offences punishable under Sections 377, 498-A, 342, 420, 323,

504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

4. Shri J.S. Chilotra, learned counsel appearing for the

applicants submits that even if the contents of the oral report

leading to the registration of FIR are to be taken as it is, no offence

is made out against the applicants and certainly not the offences

that are registered under the said FIR.

5. The learned counsel invited attention to the relevant

portion where reference is made against the applicants in the 3 921-J-APL-255-20.odt

report. It is submitted that very general and vague allegations are

made against the applicants to the effect that the applicants used

to instigate accused No.1 i.e. husband of non-applicant No.2

(informant) to harass her.

6. Shri I. J. Damle, learned APP brought to our notice the

statement and supplementary statement of the non-applicant

No.2, recorded during the course of investigation. We find that in

the said statement also, non-applicant No.2 has attributed the

same role to the applicants, as was stated in the aforesaid oral

report, leading to the registration of FIR.

7. We have perused the offences that are registered

against the accused persons in the aforesaid FIR. We find that

offences under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC could perhaps be

invoked against the applicants. The ingredients of other offences

are completely absent, insofar as applicants are concerned. Even

in regard to the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC,

we are not convinced as to whether the said offences could be

invoked against the applicants on the basis of general and vague

allegations made in the oral report at the behest of non-applicant

No.2. Even otherwise, we find that since the offences under 4 921-J-APL-255-20.odt

Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC are non-cognizable, FIR could not

have been registered only for the said offences against the

applicants herein.

8. For the reasons stated above, we are convinced that the

FIR deserves to be quashed, insofar as the applicants before this

Court are concerned.

9. Accordingly, application is allowed in terms of Prayer

Clause (B), which reads as follows :-

"B. That, the First Information Report bearing Crime No.0708/2019 dtd. 24.12.2019 registered at Khadan Police Station, Akola for offences punishable U/Sec. 377, 498-A, 342, 420, 323, 504, 506 R/w 34 of Indian Penal Code may kindly be quash and set aside to the extent of present applicants."

10. It is made clear that the said FIR has been quashed only

in respect of the applicants before this Court.

11. We make it clear that in view of disposal of this

application, there would be no impediment for the non-applicant

No.1-State to proceed to file charge-sheet against other accused

persons.

            [VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.]                    [MANISH PITALE, J.]
 Choulwar


            Digitally signed by
VITHAL      VITHAL MAROTRAO
MAROTRAO    CHOULWAR
            Date: 2022.08.26
CHOULWAR    17:08:51 +0530