Janardhan Mahadeo Bipate vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3986 Bom

                                      1                23-J-APL-1082-22.doc


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

            CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1082 OF 2022

 APPLICANT :                   Janardhan Mahadeo Bipate,
                               Age about 40 years,
                               Occupation : Service,
                               R/o Sukali (Ubhad), Post : Pawnur,
                               Tq. Arvi, Dist. : Washim.

                               VERSUS

 RESPONDENTS :                 1.    The State of Maharashtra
                                     through Police Station Officer,
                                     Kharangana, Dist. : Wardha.
                               2.    Sau Sarala W/o Sheshrao Kharwade
                                     Aged about 41 years,
                                     Occupation : Business,
                                     R/o Sukali (Ubhad), post : Pawnur,
                                     Tq. Arvi, Dist. : Wardha.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mrs. Sonali Saware/Gadhawe, Advocate (Appointed) for applicant.
 Shri A. M. Kadukar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.
 Ms. Gayatri Dive, Advocate (Appointed) for respondent No.2.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               CORAM: VINAY JOSHI AND
                                             BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATE : 21/04/2023.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :

1. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned

counsel appearing for the parties.

2. This is an application seeking to quash First

Information Report in Crime No.0891/2021 registered for the

offence punishable under Sections 294, 509 and 506 of the Indian

Penal Code.

2 23-J-APL-1082-22.doc

3. After investigation, police have added the provisions of

Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the

applicant.

4. The applicant's learned counsel seeks for quashing of

First Information Report on account of inconsistencies in the

statement of witnesses, improbability of the occurrence, non-

applicability of Section 354-A of the IPC and old rivalry between

the parties. The other side resisted the application by contending

that the contents of First Information Report and material

collected during investigation disclose commission of cognizable

offence and therefore, it is not a case of quashing.

5. The informant lady lodged a report on 11/12/2021

regarding the occurrence took place in the evening. The parties are

neighbouring residents. The informant stated that, earlier she has

filed police report against the applicant in the year 2015 in which

the applicant was acquitted and therefore, he has filed a case for

defamation. On this background, she stated that on 11/12/2021 in

the evening, the applicant gave a push and uttered obscene words

touching to the chastity of a woman which are specified in the

report. The police have recorded supplementary statement of the

informant on 16/12/2021 in which she is consistent about the

incident of abuses, however, there is variation on account whether

3 23-J-APL-1082-22.doc

she was pushed or the applicant caught hold and then pushed him.

The police have recorded the statements of some eye-witnesses to

the occurrence. To name the few, the statement of one Kavita and

Vaishali has been recorded who have equally stated that on the

date of occurrence, applicant has abused informant lady in filthy

language as stated by informant.

6. It is the applicant's contention that the contents of FIR

are false as there was enmity between the parties. It is argued that

since earlier, informant remained unsuccessful therefore, the false

report has been filed. As a matter of fact, when the material

regarding commission of cognizable offence prima facie makes out

from police papers, we cannot prejudge or jump to the conclusion

that the FIR is false on account of old rivalry. Obviously, it is a

matter of trial. The informant's statement is to be tested on the

anvil of cross-examination.

7. So far as the applicability of provisions of Section 354-A

of the IPC are concerned, sub-clause 1(iv) of Section 354-A of the

IPC says that if any one makes sexually coloured remarks, then he

would be guilty of the said offence. Prima facie material to that

effect emerges from the police papers.

8. Time and again, Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed

that while invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the

4 23-J-APL-1082-22.doc

Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court shall not embark into the

enquiry of acceptability of evidence since it is a matter of trial.

There are no circumstances to prima facie hold that proceeding is

manifestly attended with malafide. The quashing shall be in tune

with the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of State of Haryana and others Vrs. Bhajan Lal and others,

1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. The case does not fall in either of the

categories enumerated in Clauses 1 to 7 of said decision. A reading

of police paper makes out prima facie triable case. Therefore, we

are not inclined to accept the contention of quashing. The Trial

Court has already framed charges. In view of that, application does

not carry any merit, hence, rejected. We make it clear that the

above observations are made only for deciding this application

which has no impact on the merit of the case.

9. The application is disposed of accordingly.

10. The fees of Mrs. Sonali Saware/Gadhawe, Advocate

(Appointed) for applicant and Ms. Gayatri Dive, Advocate

(Appointed) for respondent No.2 be quantified and paid, as per

the Rules.

            [BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.]                       [VINAY JOSHI, J.]
Choulwar