[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Neha W/O Rahul Alias Abhilesh Jaiswal ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Lohara Tq. And ... on 3 December, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:13445-DB
APL-D-1076-2021.odt 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL)NO.1076 OF 2021
1. Smt. Neha w/o Rahul Alias Abhilesh
Jaiswal, Aged about 35 years,
Occ.: House hold. R/o. Sambhaji Nagar,
Flat No. G 1, Panchvati Apartment,
Tq. & Dist Yavatmal.
2. Vinod S/oa. Lakhaman Rai,
Aged about 61 years,
Occ.: Biusiness. R/o. Plot No. 33,
Om Society, New Lohara P.S., Arni Road,
Tq & Dist Yavatmal.
... APPLICANTS
...VERSUS...
1. The State of Maharashtra, Through P.S.O.,
P.S. Lohara, Tq. & District Yavatmal.
2. Smt. Poonam Ramesh Thorat,
Aged About 36 Years, Occ. House Hold,
R/o c/o Pramod Rai, Sneh Nagar,
Inside Ranapratap Nagar Get,
Arni Road, Tq. & District - Yavatmal.
...NON-APPLICANTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri J.K. Matale, Advocate for applicants
Shri M.J. Khan, APP for non-applicant No.1/State
Shri S.S. Deshpande, Advocate for non-applicant No.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
APL-D-1076-2021.odt 2/6
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. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code for quashing and setting aside the First Information
Report vide Crime No. 0093/2021, for offences punishable and
decision 294, 323 and 506, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, registered by the non-applicant No.1 against the present
applicants. The application also prays for quashing and setting aside
the charge-sheet No.103/2021 dated 29/09/2021, and the RCC No.
1546/2021, pending before the learned Civil Judge Junior Division
and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yavatmal.
3. As per the contents of the First Information Report lodged by
the non-applicant No.2, the accused No.1, Neha, is residing at the
Om Society, and Vinod Rai, residing in the same Society, has
assaulted and abused her. According to the non-applicant No.2 and
as stated in the First Information Report, there is a property in the
name of her father bearing Survey No.19/2, plot No. 46, and there
are four shop blocks on the said property, regarding which the
dispute is going on. It is further stated in the First Information
Report that on 09/06/2021, when the non-applicant No. 2 was at
the said shop block, the applicant No. 2 pushed her and assaulted
her with the help of a stone, due to which she suffered injury to her
leg. The said applicant also threatened her with life and abused her
in filthy language. It is this First Information Report which is
challenged in the present application on the grounds stated therein.
4. We have heard Shri Matale, learned Counsel for the
applicants, as also, Shri M.J. Khan, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the non-applicant No. 1/State, and Shri S.S.
Deshpande, learned Counsel for the non-applicant No. 2.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that a meaningful
reading of the First Information Report would reveal that no
offence, much less as complained of in the First Information Report,
can be made out against the applicants. He further submits that
even if the allegations in the First Information Report are taken on
their face value, no offence can be made out against the present
applicants. He submits that there is a cross First Information Report,
which is filed by the present applicants, and the dispute is between
two brothers, which is essentially civil in nature, and has been given
a colour of criminality. He, therefore, prays for quashing the
proceedings in question.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor while
vehemently opposing the contentions advanced by the learned
Counsel for the parties, submits that the First Information Reports
squarely make out a case against the applicants regarding the
offences as stated in the First Information Report. Furthermore, he
submits that the Investigating Agency has recorded statements of
the witnesses, who have supported the prosecution case. He
therefore, states that there is a prima facie material against the
applicants, and therefore, this would not be a case to quash the
First Information Report. The learned Counsel for the non-applicant
No.2 also supports the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and
states that this is not a fit case to exercise inherent jurisdiction.
7. In the backdrop of these facts, we have perused the First
Information Report and the consequent charge-sheet filed on
record. As can be seen from the First Information Report, the
allegation is regarding pushing the non-applicant No.2 and
assaulting her on her leg by way of a stone. The medical report also
supports that there was an abrasion. It is a matter of record that the
parties who are real brothers are litigating over the possession of
the shops in question, and there are various litigation inter se
between them. However, as can be seen from the First Information
Report, the offence under Section 294, which contemplates
obscenity, can at least prima facie be made out at this stage against
the applicants as there are abuses made by the applicants.
Furthermore, as far as the offence punishable under Section 323,
which speaks about punishment for voluntarily causing hurt, can
also be prima facie seen to be made out as hurt is caused.
Furthermore, as far as offence under Section 506 regarding criminal
intimidation is concerned, perusal of the charge-sheet as also the
First Information Report would indicate that there is a threat of
injury to the person or property, and therefore, the said offence
under section can also be made out prima facie against the present
applicants. The rival contentions of the parties can only be tested on
the anvil of cross-examination when the parties are subjected to a
full fledged trial. The contention regarding the applicants or the
non-applicant No.2 or anybody on their behalf being in possession
of the property would not be a relevant factor at this stage to
exercise our inherent jurisdiction, more particularly when a
meaningful reading of the First Information Report would reveal
prima facie involvement of the applicants in the offence. We are,
therefore, of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case to
exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. We, therefore, pass the following order.
ORDER
The application is rejected.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Jayashree..
