[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Swapna Pavanesh Agrawal vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Mana, Akola, ... on 3 February, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:1762-DB
24-APL-909-2024.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 909 OF 2023
1. Swapna Pavanesh Agrawal,
Aged about 42 years,
Occupation- Practicing Advocate &
Part Time Lecturer Edu. Ph.D.,
R/o. Sai Sadan 4/5, 48 Blocks
MHADA Colony, Ram Nagar, APPLICANT
Ratanlal Plot, Akola 444004.
// V E R S U S //
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station, Mana,
Akola,
District: Akola.
2. Satish Dattuji Dhakre,
Aged about 40 Years,
Occupation: Driver,
R/o. Vaibhav Kalni Dastur Nagar
Amravati, District- Amravati. NON-APPLICANT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Amol Mohan Jaltare, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. N. B. Jawade, APP for Non-applicant /State.
Mr. S. P. Hinge a/w Sahil Dewani, Advocate for Non-applicant
No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATED : 29.01.2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard. Admit.
24-APL-909-2024.odt
2. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsels for
the respective parties.
3. By this application the applicant is seeking quashing of the
first information report in connection with Crime No.119 of 2023
registered under Sections 324, 323, 294, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and the consequent proceedings arising out of RCC
No. 191 of 2024.
4. The applicant is arraigned as an accused in connection with
the above said crime on the basis of a report lodged by Satish
Dattuji Dhakre on an allegation that he was traveling to
Murtizapur from Amravati by a car bearing No. MH 27 DW 7070.
He was driving the said car. At the relevant time, the applicant
along with her husband was also traveling in Scorpio Vehicle
bearing No. MH 04 GU 9064. When they were traveling there was
delay by the informant for giving him side for overtaking the car.
Due to which husband of the present applicant got annoyed and
abused him and also obtained the rod from the present applicant
and assaulted him. On the basis of the said report, police have
registered the crime against the present applicant.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as far as
the role of the present applicant is concerned, which is only to the
24-APL-909-2024.odt
extent that she has handed over the rod to the other co-accused
and the rest of the allegation is in the nature of omnibus and
vague allegations. He submitted that even accepting the allegation
as it is, there is nothing on record to show that she is sharing the
common intention with the co-accused. As far as the assault is
concerned, mere her presence at the spot and handing over the
rod is not sufficient to attract the offence punishable under
Sections 324, 323, 294, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. He also invited my
attention towards the entire charge-sheet in the statement of the
witnesses and submitted that except above said allegation, there is
no overt act attributed to her and therefore, forcing her to
continue with the above said proceedings would be an abuse of
the process of law. In view of that, he prayed for quashing of the
first information report and the consequent proceedings.
6. Learned APP strongly opposed for the same and submitted
that as far as the role of the present applicant is concerned, which
shows that she was sharing the common intention with the other
co-accused. In view of that, the application deserves to be
rejected.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant also endorsed the
same contention.
24-APL-909-2024.odt
8. On hearing both the sides and on perusal of the entire
investigation report as far as the incident is concerned ,admittedly,
the FIR is lodged against the present applicant also alleging that
she was travelling along with the co-accused and when they were
travelling there was altercation of the words and during that
altercation, the other co-accused has obtained the rod from the
present applicant and assaulted the informant. Thus, the rod
attributed to the present applicant is only that the co-accused
went towards his vehicle obtained the rod from her and she has
handed over the said rod and thereafter, the co-accused has
assaulted the informant. Thus, even accepting the allegation as it
is, at its face value by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that
she was sharing the common intention along with the other co-
accused. There is nothing on record to show that she was aware
about the intention of the other co-accused that he would assault
the informant by obtaining the said rod. The applicant was
handed over the said rod, which is not sufficient to attract the
offence under Section 34 of the IPC. Except that allegation, there
is no allegation against the present applicant, showing any overt
act or any specific role attributed to her. In view of that, a prima
facie case is not made out against her and therefore, the
24-APL-909-2024.odt
application deserves to be allowed by considering the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana
and others vs. Bhajanlal and others reported in 1992 Supp(1)
Supreme Court Cases 335, wherein it is held that:
" (a) where the allegations made in the First
Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
(c) where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the accused;
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the
basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused."
9. In light of the above said parameters laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, the applicant has made out a case to quash
the first information report as well as the consequent proceedings.
In view of that, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) Application is allowed.
(ii) The first information report in connection with
Crime No.119 of 2023 registered under Sections 324,
323, 294, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the
consequent proceedings arising out of RCC No. 191 of
24-APL-909-2024.odt
2024 is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of
the present applicant- Swapna Pavanesh Agrawal.
10. Application is disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
MJ Jadhav
