[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Nital Balaji Pitlewad And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 30 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:13938-DB
(1) 2criapln658.23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
2 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 658 OF 2023
NITAL BALAJI PITLEWAD AND OTHERS
....Applicants
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
.....Respondents
Mr. A. N. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the applicants
Mr. S. N. Morampalle, APP for the respondents/State
Mr. U. B. Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent No.2
CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.
DATE : 30th MARCH, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard the respective counsels for the parties.
2. On 18-07-2023, this court has passed the following
order:
"It is a cross case. Only with a view to explore possibility
of settlement, we are inclined to issue notice, since
learned counsel for the applicants submits that if other
side urges for quashment of the FIR of one of the
applicants herein, the applicants, would give consent
therefor. Issue notice for final disposal, returnable on 22-
08-2023. Mr. S. J. Salgare, learned APP waives notice for
respondent No.1. In addition to the court notice, private
service is permitted.
2. The applicant No. 1 and 6 namely, Nital
Balaji Pitlewad and Shital Balaji Pitlewad are exempted
from appearing before the trial court for next four
months."
1 of 10
(2) 2criapln658.23
3. A challenge in this application is to the registration of the
First Information Report No.76/2022 dated 04-05-2022 registered
with Markhel Police Station, Dist. Nanded for the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 354, 294,
323, 341 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and charge-sheet bearing
No.23/2022 dated 03-07-2022 submitted in the Proceeding No.126
of 2022 before the JMFC, Degloor. Said FIR was registered at the
behest of the informant by name Rukhminbai Patil in all against
seven accused. All the seven accused have approached this court
praying for quashment of FIR and charge-sheet.
4. Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that
charges are also framed. Learned Advocate for the applicants
submitted that there is delay in lodging the FIR. He submitted that
the delay of four days is unexplained and goes to the root of the
matter.
5. It is the principal contention of the present applicants
that the FIR No.76/2022 is striking example of abuse of power and
counter blast. He submitted that one Nital/applicant No. 1 in the
present application had filed FIR bearing No.75/2022 dated 03-02-
2022 for commission of offences punishable under Sections
143,147,149,452,324,323,506 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)
(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
2 of 10
(3) 2criapln658.23
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the witnesses who are named in
the FIR No. 76/2022 and it is due to that in order to give counter
blast, FIR impugned was filed against them.
6. Per contra, learned Advocate for the non-applicant has
contended that charges in the present matter are also framed and in
absence of challenge to the same, power under Section 482 of the Cr.
P. C. may not be invoked.
7. Learned Advocate for the informant submitted that FIR
registered cannot be called as counter blast since neither the
informant nor family members are named in initial FIR No.75/2022.
He further submitted that version of the informant is supported by
the injury certificate which is part and parcel of the final report which
clearly shows that Rukhminibai/informant has sustained five injuries
i.e. abrasion to middle of forehead, abrasion to above left eyebrow,
blunt injury to left forearm, blunt injury to backregion, blunt injury to
right thigh. All injuries are in simple in nature. The weapon used is
blunt. The age of injuries is 24 hours.
8. Learned APP submitted that bare perusal of the FIR as
well as final report reveals prima facie case against the present
applicants and therefore, prayed that application be dismissed.
9. With the help of respective counsels, I have gone through
3 of 10
(4) 2criapln658.23
the record of the case.
10. The FIR No.76/2022 dated 04-05-2022 is registered at
the instance of one Rukhminbai. It is made clear that said
Rukhminbai is not the accused in the FIR No.75/2022 dated 03-05-
2022 which is lodged at the behest of the present applicant No. 1.
11. In the FIR bearing No.76/2022, it is alleged by the
informant that she resides along with her son and husband and
performs the agriculture work. On 01-05-2022 at about 08.00 in the
morning when she proceeded for doing the agriculture work, and
reached till the house of the Shrinivas, a villager by name Balaji,
obstructed her way, and uttered 'fNuky jkaM rqEgh vkeP;k ?ksrysY;k tfeuhpk
jqdfork dk; rq>k ek;ph xkaM rqyk ;sFksp iqjqui Vkdrks ' and thereafter assaulted
her by means of stick on her head. At that time, wife of said Balaji by
name Laxmibai, father by name Maroti, Mother-Subhabai, daughter-
Shetal and Neetal and one Shivaji also came near her and started
abusing her in a filthy language. It is also stated in the FIR that wife
of the accused Balaji so also, daughter Sheetal & Nital assaulted the
informant by means of slaps and kick blows.
12. It is alleged in the FIR that at that time Shivaji who was
holding the stick in his hand assaulted her on left elbow. The
informant then alleged that she tried to rescue herself but accused
4 of 10
(5) 2criapln658.23
Balaji again uttered ' fNuky jkaM rqyk mH;kus >orks ' and then also caught
hold of the hand of the applicant and took his hand towards breast of
the informant. Due to which, she felt ashamed. She then stated that
accused out raged her modesty and again abused the informant by
uttering following words 'jkaM rqEgh dksVkZr Vkdysyk nkok mpywu ?ks ukgh rj rqyk
o rq>k dqVwackyk [kre djrks '.
13. Thereafter villager by name Baliram and Shriram
interfered due to which she could save herself. In the FIR, she further
stated that earlier to it also she and her family members were
assaulted and civil suit bearing No. 116/2020 is pending before the
competent court of law.
14. In this background criminal law was set in motion which
further triggered the investigation and completion of which resulted
into filing of the final report. The registration of Regular Criminal
Case also took place and order taking cognizance was also passed.
15. At the outset, it is necessary to mention here that in the
present case charge is already framed but not challenged. In this
regard, observations of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Amit
Kapoor Vs Ramesh Chander and another reported in 2012 9 SCC 460
particularly in para Nos. 27 to 27.16 are as under.
"27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under
these two provisions i.e. Section 397 and Section 482 of
5 of 10
(6) 2criapln658.23
the Code and the fine line of jurisdictional distinction,
now it will be appropriate for us to enlist the principles
with reference to which the courts should exercise such
jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult but is
inherently impossible to state with precision such
principles. At best and upon objective analysis of various
judgments of this court, we are able to cull out some of
the principles to be considered for proper exercise of
jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of
charage either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section
397 or Section 482 of the Code or together, as the case
may be:
27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the
court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the
power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised
in invoking these powers. The power of quashing
criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in
terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised
very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in
the rarest of rare cases.
27.2. The court should apply the test as to whether the
controverted allegations as made from the record of the
case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie
establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so
patently absurd and inherently improbable that no
prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and
where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not
satisfied then the court may interfere.
27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No
meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for
considering whether the case would end in conviction or
not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of
charge.
27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely
essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for
correcting some grave error that might be committed by
the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High
Court should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to
throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent
powers.
27.5. Where there is an express legal bar enacted in any
6 of 10
(7) 2criapln658.23
of the provisions of the Code or any specific law in force
to the very initiation or institution and continuance of
such criminal proceedings, such a bar is intended to
provide specific protection to an accused.
27.6. The court has a duty to balance the freedom of a
person and the right of the complainant or prosecution
to investigate and prosecute the offender.
27.7. The process of the court cannot be permitted to be
used for an oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose.
27.8. Where the allegations made and as they appeared
from the record and documents annexed therewith to
predominantly give rise and constitute a 'civil wrong'
with no 'element of criminality' and does not satisfy the
basic ingredients of a criminal offence, the court may be
justified in quashing the charge. Even in such cases, the
court would not embark upon the critical analysis of the
evidence.
27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts
have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts,
evidence and materials on record to determine whether
there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case
would end in a conviction; the court is concerned
primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether
they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of
the process of court leading to injustice.
27.10. It is neither necessary nor is the court called
upon to hold a full-fledged enquiry or to appreciate
evidence collected by the investigating agencies to find
out whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction.
27.11. Where allegations give rise to a civil claim
and also amount to an offence, merely because a civil
claim is maintainable, does not mean that a criminal
complaint cannot be maintained.
27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section
228 and/or under Section 482, the court cannot take
into consideration external materials given by an
accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was
disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal.
The court has to consider the record and documents
annexed there with by the prosecution.
7 of 10
(8) 2criapln658.23
27.13. Quashing of charge is an exception to the
rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is
even broadly satisfied, the court should be more inclined
to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its
quashing at that initial stage. The court is not expected
to marshal the records with a view to decide
admissibility and reliability of the documents or records
but is an opinion formed prima facie.
27.14. Where the charge-sheet, report under
Section 173(2) of the Code, suffers from fundamental
legal defects, the court may be well within its
jurisdiction to frame a charge.
27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where
the court finds that it would amount to abuse of process
of the code or that the interest of justice favours,
otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be
exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and
substantial justice for administration of which alone, the
courts exist. 27.16. These are the principles which
individually and preferably cumulatively (one or more)
be taken into consideration as precepts to exercise of
extraordinary and wide plenitude and jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code by the High Court. Where the
factual foundation for an offence has been laid down,
the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to
quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or
two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to
be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the
requirements of the offence."
16. If the aforesaid observations of the Hoh'ble Apex court
are perused, it would be crystal clear that once the charges are
framed, the High Court should not interfere unless exceptional case is
made out. Further no meticulous examination of evidence is needed
for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not, at
the stage of framing of charges or quashing the charge. Notably, if the
8 of 10
(9) 2criapln658.23
allegations made in the FIR are perused, it would be crystal clear that
the informant has categorically stated the role played by each
accused. Balaji not only assaulted the informant by means of stick,
but also out raged her modesty. So far as Subhabai and Maroti is
concerned, there is specific case that they have abused the informant.
The role assigned to accused Sheetal and Nital is also specific in FIR
which stated that both of them assaulted by means of slaps and kick
blows.
17. The contention of the learned Advocate for the
applicants that earlier FIR bearing No.75/2022 was registered and in
order to give counter blast to it, FIR impugned is registered, cannot
be considered in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
(supra) and considering the fact that charge is already framed.
18. At this stage, detailed examination and the defence of
the accused cannot be taken into consideration. Since the charges are
already framed and case is also fixed for evidence, it would not be
proper to exercise powers conferred under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C.
since prima facie case is made out against the applicants. As rightly
pointed out by the App conducting a mini trial at this stage is not
permissible. The delay whether would go to the root of the matter or
would prove fatal for the prosecution will have to be tested in the
background of the evidence which would be laid by the respective
9 of 10
(10) 2criapln658.23
parties.
19. In that view of the matter, the present application is
rejected.
20. Needless to mention here that the observations made are
of prima facie in nature.
[RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. ]
VishalK/2criapln658.23
10 of 10
