[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Advocate Sudhir S/O Hiramanji Tayade ... vs State Of Mah., Thr. Police Station ... on 20 January, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:962-DB
1 103.APL.994-2019.JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 994 OF 2019
1. Advocate Sudhir S/o Hiramanji
Tayade,
Aged 53 years, Occ. Advocate,
R/o Jail quarter road, Near old
Police chowki, District- Amravati.
2. Sandesh s/o Hiramanji Tayade,
Aged 46 years Occ. Teacher,
R/o Jail quarter road, Near old
Police chowki, District- Amravati. APPLICANTS
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Incharge,
Police Station Frezarpura,
Dist- Amravati Maharashtra.
2. Mahesh S/o Bhonajirao Tayade,
Age: 48 years.
R/o Police Ashiyana Club, Rahul
Nagar, Frazarpura, District-Amravati. NON-APPLICANTS
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. A.R. Ingole, Advocate for the Applicants.
Ms. Mrunal Barabde, APP for the Non-applicant No.1/State.
-----------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATED : 20th JANUARY, 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
2 103.APL.994-2019.JUDGMENT.odt
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Heard finally by the consent of learned
Counsel for the respective parties.
3. The present Application is preferred by the
Applicants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with
Crime No.779/2019 registered with Police Station Frezarpura,
District Amravati for the offence punishable under Sections
392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The crime is registered on the basis of the report
lodged by the Non-applicant No.2/Informant against the present
Applicants on an allegation that on 25.06.2019 at about 08.30
p.m., when he was proceeding on his motorcycle, the Applicant
No.1 has restrained his motorcycle and abused him in a filthy
language and snatched his mobile phone and broken it as well
as snatched the amount of Rs.1,300/- from him. On the basis of
the said report Police have registered the crime against the
present Applicants.
3 103.APL.994-2019.JUDGMENT.odt
5. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants who
submitted that, the Applicant No.1 is Advocate by profession
and Applicant No.2 is Teacher. Their involvement in the alleged
offence is on the basis of the false and omnibus allegations due
to the previous enmity. He submitted that, during investigation
also nothing incriminating is found except the statement of the
Informant no other statements are recorded. Thus, he submitted
that, considering the statement of the Informant no prima facie
case is made out against the present Applicants. In view of that,
the Application deserves to be allowed.
6. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed for the
said contentions and submitted that, there is an independent
statement of one Pramod Bhaskarrao Khadse which
substantiates the allegations levelled against the present
Applicants. In view of that, as the prima facie case is made out,
the Application deserves to be rejected.
7. Before entering into the merits of the case, it is
necessary to see the parameters which are laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Harayana & Ors. Vs.
4 103.APL.994-2019.JUDGMENT.odt
Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. , 1992 AIR 604, while considering the
Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which reads as under:
"(1) 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.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) 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.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) 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.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is
a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
5 103.APL.994-2019.JUDGMENT.odt
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge."
8. In the light of the above parameters laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court, at this stage whether there is a prima
facie material or not is to be seen. As far as the previous dispute
is concerned, nothing is on record to show that the dispute of
such a nature that there was a reason for the Non-applicant
No.2 to implicate the present Applicants in the alleged offence.
On the contrary, the statement of the Informant is substantiated
by the independent witness namely Pramod Bhaskarrao Khadse
which shows that on the day of incident the Informant was
restrained by the present Applicants and the amount was
snatched from him as well as damaged the mobile phone of the
Informant. Thus, considering the statement recorded during
investigation, prima facie case is made out, and therefore, I
have shown my disinclination to entertain the Application. In
view of that, the Application deserves to be rejected.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.
6 103.APL.994-2019.JUDGMENT.odt
ORDER
i. Criminal Application is rejected.
9. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
S.D.Bhimte
Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 21/01/2026 18:30:53
