Bombay High Court
Shrirang Savitrabua Dinde And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 15 March, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
(1) cria2939.21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
932 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2939 OF 2021
SHRIRANG SAVITRABUA DINDE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Mr.Sujit A. Patil h/f. Mr. A.S. Kakade, Advocate for the
applicants.
Mr.K.S. Patil, APP for the respondent/State.
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV &
SANDIPKUMAR C.MORE,JJ.
DATED : 15.03.2022
PC :-
01. We have heard learned Counsel for the applicants
at length. We are not inclined to entertain this
criminal application seeking quashing of the FIR in Crime
No.303 OF 2021 registered with Ashti Police Station, Tal.
Ashti, Dist. Beed for the offences punishable under
sections 324, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
02. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that
applicant No.1 is serving as a Constable and applicant
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2022 01:35:49 :::
(2) cria2939.21
No.2 is his wife and applicant No.3 is his son. Learned
Counsel submits that there is civil litigation pending
between the parties and due to said dispute, in order to
counterblast, this complaint came to be filed. Learned
counsel for the applicants submits that applicant No.1 -
Shrirang was on Court duty at the relevant time, as such
he has been falsely implicated in connection with present
crime. Learned Counsel submits that there is considerable
delay in lodging the complaint, for which no explanation
has been given. Learned Counsel submits that the
applicants have been falsely implicated in connection
with present crime.
03. For quashing proceedings, the Court is not
supposed to consider the probable defence of the accused.
It is for the applicants-accused to establish defence of
alibi during the course of trial. Further-more, if there
is delay in lodging the complaint, it is for the Trial
Court to consider the same as to whether the delay is
reasonable or unreasonable. We cannot conduct a mini
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2022 01:35:49 :::
(3) cria2939.21
trial here and give clean-cheat to the applicants-
accused.
04. We have carefully perused the police papers. It
appears that the informant has sustained injury and he
was treated in the concerned primary health center. It
appears that the informant has sustained head injury and
history as recorded in the said discharge card is that
the informant was subjected to physical assault on head
and back.
05. In a case of State of State of Odisha Vs.
Pratima Mohanty etc in Criminal appeal Nos.1455-1456 of
2021 decided on 11.12.2021, the Supreme Court in para 6.2
has made following observations :-
6.2 It is trite that the power of quashing should be
exercised sparingly and with circumspection and in rare
cases. As per settled proposition of law while examining
an FIR/complaint quashing of which is sought, the court
cannot embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness of allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2022 01:35:49 :::
(4) cria2939.21
rather than any ordinary rule. Normally the criminal
proceedings should not be quashed in exercise of powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when after a thorough
investigation the charge-sheet has been filed. At the
stage of discharge and/or considering the application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the courts are not required to
go into the merits of the allegations and/or evidence in
detail as if conducting the mini-trial. As held by this
Court the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide,
but conferment of wide power requires the court to be
more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent
duty on the Court."
06. Further-more, even if we consider malafides as
argued by the learned Counsel for the applicants,
however, it has been observed in the case of State of
Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, reported in
1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 in para No. 111 of the judgment
that even malafides have been alleged, if the allegations
are clear, then those submissions about malafides are
required to be ignored. Further more looking to the
allegations in the present case against the applicants,
it cannot be said that criminal proceedings initiated
against the applicants are abuse of process of Court.
Further-more, the case does not fall within any of the
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2022 01:35:49 :::
(5) cria2939.21
exceptions as carved out by the Supreme Court in the case
of Bajanlal (supra).
07. Hence, following order :-
O R D E R
(i) The Criminal Application is hereby dismissed.
[SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE,J.] [V.K. JADHAV,J.]
snk/2022/MAR22/cria2939.21
