[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Pramod S/O Laxman Rai And Another vs State Of Mah. Thr. Ps Lohara Yavatmal ... on 3 December, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:13444-DB
APL-D-99-2022.odt 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL)NO.99 OF 2022
1. Pramod S/o Laxman Rai,
Aged about 65 years, Occ.: Agriculturist
and Business, R/o Sneh Nagar,
Ranapratap Gate, Arni Road,
Yavatmal, District-Yavatmal.
2. Sonali W/o Satish Sule,
Aged about 37 years, Occ.: Service,
R/o Sainath Society, Ranapratap
Gate, Arni Road, Yavatmal,
District- Yavatmal.
3. Poonam W/o Ramesh Thorat,
Aged about 36 years, Occ.: Household,
R/o Sneh Nagar, Ranapratap
Gate, Arni Road, Yavatmal,
District- Yavatmal
... APPLICANT
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra through Police
Station Lohara, Yavatmal, District
Yavatmal.
2. Vinod Laxman Rai, Aged about
62 years, R/o Om Society, Arni road,
Yavatmal. Tal. Yaratmal
...NON-APPLICANTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.S. Deshpande, Advocate for applicants
Shri M.J. Khan, APP for non-applicant No.1/State
Shri J.K. Matale, Advocate for non-applicant No.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APL-D-99-2022.odt 2/6
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 21.11.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 03.12.2025
JUDGMENT (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)
Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned
Counsel for both the parties.
2. The applicants have approached this Court by filing present
application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
challenging the First Information Report dated 09/06/2021,
bearing Crime No.0092/2021, for the offences for under Sections
448, 506, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police
Station Lohara, Yavatmal, and subsequent charge-sheet
No.132/2021, dated 19/11/2021, for the offences for under
Sections 448, 427, 454 and 506, read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. Initially, the First Information Report was also under
Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Defacement of Property
Act 1995, however, the said Section was dropped, and Section 427
and 454 of the Indian Penal Code were added.
3. As per the First Information Report lodged by the non-
applicant No. 2, on 09/06/2021, the present non-applicant No.2
lodged a First Information Report alleging that the applicants
herein have committed the offences as stated supra. As per the said
First Information Report, the applicants, on 09/06/2021 at about
2:00 p.m., without any authority or right in that regard, demolished
the wall of a shop owned by the non-applicant No. 2. When the
daughter of the non-applicant No. 2 confronted the applicants and
asked them for a reason for doing so, the applicants abused her and
threatened her for life. Thus, the applicants caused a loss of about
Rs.10,000/- to the non-applicant No. 2, which resulted in lodging of
the said First Information Report in question. The said First
Information Report is challenged in the present application.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicants, as
also, learned Additional Public Procedure for non-applicant
No.1/State and learned Counsel for the non applicant No.2.
5. Shri S.S. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the applicants,
submits that the First Information Report in question and the
consequent charge-sheet are nothing but an abuse of process of the
law, and no prima facie case, much less as stated in the First
Information Report, can be made out against the applicants after a
meaningful reading of the same. He submits that the applicants are
in possession of the shop in question, and therefore, there is no
question of committing any offence of trespass as alleged in the
First Information Report. He invites our attention to the copy of the
notice sent by the applicants dated 09/06/2021 and reply to the
same by the non applicant No. 2 on 14/06/2021. Thus, the learned
Counsel for the applicants submits that there is nothing on record to
show that the applicants have committed trespass as alleged in the
First Information Report. He, therefore, prays for questioning of the
same and the consequences.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while opposing the
application, states that the Investigating Agency, during the course
of investigation, has conducted a spot panchanama and taken
photographs of the place of incidence seized the hammer and
chisel, and recorded the statements of eyewitnesses. The said eye
witnesses have narrated particular role of the applicants, and
therefore, in his submission, prima facie material is against the
applicants. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the application.
7. Learned Counsel for the non-applicant No.2, while supporting
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, also states that there is a
tribal case, and therefore, the application is liable to be rejected.
8. In the backdrop of these facts, we have perused the material
on record. The grounds on which the First Information Report is
challenged are that the applicants are already in possession of the
premises in question, and therefore, there is no question of
committing any trespass, much less an offence punishable under
Sections 442, 448 of the Indian Penal Code. It is a matter of record
that the applicant No.1 and the non-applicant No.2 are real
brothers, and there are cross First Information Reports against each
other. The statement of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating
Agency, and more particularly one Neha Abhilesh Jaiswal, clearly
spells out the role of the applicants in demolishing the wall of the
shop in question. Furthermore, the statement of Rahul Vinod Rai
and Punit Dipakrao Shivankar, who happen to be independent
witnesses, also supports the claim of the non-applicant No.2. In that
view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there is a prima facie
material against the present applicants, and the veracity of the
statements can be tested only at a full fledged trial. In our opinion,
therefore, this would not be a fit case to exercise powers under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which in our view
cannot be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. In that view
of the matter, the following order is passed.
ORDER
The application is rejected.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Jayashree..
