[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Aniruddha Harihar Mandal vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Ramnagar ... on 14 January, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:596-DB
J-apl41.22 final.odt 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.41 OF 2022
Aniruddha Harihar Mandal,
Age 50 years,
Occupation : Contractor,
R/o. Manish Society, New Narmada Colony,
Katol Road, Nagpur. : APPLICANT
...VERSUS...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Ramnagar,
Distt : Chandrapur.
2. Satish Chandrakant Shrivastav,
Aged 50 years,
Occupation : Agriculure,
R/o. Bhagatsingh Chowk,
Railway Station Road,
Brahmapuri, Tah. Brahmapuri,
Dist. Chandrapur : NON-APPLICANTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. Sachin W. Sambre, Advocate for Applicant.
Mrs. Swati Kolhe, Additional Public Prosecutor for Non-applicant No.1.
Mr. Sumant Y. Deopujari, Advocate for Non-applicant No.2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 18th DECEMBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 14th JANUARY, 2026.
JUDGMENT :
(Per : Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.)
1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned
counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure code for quashing the First Information Report
bearing Crime No.1235/2021 for the offences punishable under
Sections 294, 504, 506, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. Since during the pendency of the present application, a
charge-sheet came to be filed, the said charge-sheet is also
challenged which is bearing No.45/2022 culminated into Summary
Criminal Case No.4243/2024.
4. As per the First Information Report lodged by the
complainant/non-applicant No.2 on 6.12.2021 at about 4.00 p.m.
near Sawarkar Square at Chandrapur, the applicant herein abused
him by assaulting and threatening him. It is further stated in the
First Information Report that on the said date i.e. 6.12.2021, at
about 4.30 p.m. when the first informant had stopped his vehicle on
the signal, the applicant started abusing the non-applicant No.2 i.e.
the first Informant and beat him with fist and blows. He further
abused him in filthy language and threatened him for life. On the
basis of these allegations subject First Information Report was
lodged by non-applicant No.2 against applicant. It is this First
Information Report which is challenged in the present application.
5. We have heard Mr. Sachin W. Sambre, learned counsel
for the applicant, Mrs. Swati Kolhe, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the non-applicant No.1 and Mr. Sumant Y.
Deopujari, learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2.
6. Mr. Sachin W. Sambre, learned counsel for the
applicant states that the First Information Report and the
consequent charge-sheet does not make out any case as against the
applicant and he has been falsely implicated. He submits that on
the same day and in respect of same incident, the applicant had
lodged a complaint with the concerned Police Station, which
however, was treated as a non-cognizable offence punishable under
Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. But on the same
set of allegations, the complaint has been entertained at the behest
of non-applicant No.2 and the First Information Report has been
registered. He, therefore, submits that the entire episode smacks of
malafides and, therefore, cannot be a basis to prosecute the
applicant. He further submits that even a meaningful reading of
the First Information Report would reveal that no offence much less
as punishable under various sections is made out against the
applicant. He, therefore, prays of quashing of the First Information
Report and the consequent charge-sheet.
7. Per contra, Mrs. Swati Kolhe, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the non-applicant No.1 submits that cognizable
offence has been made out by meaningful reading of the First
Information Report in question. She further submits that the aspect
regarding the Police registering non-cognizable case in respect of
same incident and the cross-complaints would be a matter of
evidence which would require a full-fledge trial. She further
submits that this would not be a fit case to quash the criminal
proceedings at the thresh-hold.
8. Supporting the allegations of the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, Mr. Sumant Deopujari, learned counsel for the
non-applicant No.2 by taking us through the reply filed by him,
submits that the applicant is a habitual offender and similar
offence bearing Crime No.591/2020 is registered against him on
24.11.2020. The said proceedings are also against the applicant on
a complaint lodged by the non-applicant No.2. He also submits that
non-applicant No.2 has made a detailed complaint to the Collector,
Chandrapur regarding smuggling of sand being done by the
applicant along with his associates. He, therefore, states that the
application is liable to be rejected.
9. In the backdrop of these facts, we have appreciated the
contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, as also
gone through the documents produced on record. As can be seen
from the First Information Report, the offences punishable under
Sections 294, 504, 506, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian
penal Code. The statements recorded by the Investigating Agency
during the investigation of the non-applicant No.2 and two
independent witnesses, namely, Nirmalabai Bagde and Vibha
Dinesh Hulke spells out the role of the present applicant during the
incident in question.
10. Furthermore, the applicant has not stated regarding
the lodging of the First Information Report against him previously
at the behest of the non-applicant No.2 and the pendency of the
case. The application only states that he has never been earlier
convicted in any criminal matter before any Court of law. Thus, in
our considered view there is suppression by the applicant regarding
pendency of criminal case relating to First Information Report
No.591/2020 for identical offences.
11. Even on merits at least prima facie the role of the
applicant is seen in the incident as has been corroborated by the
independent witnesses stated above. Even though it is true that on
the same set of facts the Police have registered non-cognizable case
that cannot be a sole ground to quash the criminal proceedings
against the applicant. A beneficial reference in this regard can be
made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxminarayan and others reported in
(2019) 5 SCC 688 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court stated that the
powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code are to be
used sparingly and cannot be a tool to stifle a legitimate
prosecution. Thus, in our considered opinion, this would not be a
case where inherent powers can be used, in view of the facts stated
above. Hence, we pass the following order :
ORDER
The application is rejected.
(Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.) (Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)
wadode
Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 16/01/2026 16:19:58
