Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1667 (BOM)

Sheshrao v. State of Maharashtra

2015-07-24

A.I.S.CHEEMA, S.S.SHINDE

body2015
Judgment S.S. Shinde, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. This application has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying therein for quashing the F.I.R. No. M-Case 3/2013 dated 05.02.2013 registered at Police Station, Ambad, chargesheet filed against the applicants on the basis of the said F.I.R. and also further proceedings in Criminal Case bearing R.C.C. No. 117/2014 pending against the applicants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambad. 3. Respondent No.2 herein, filed F.I.R. on 5th February, 2013. After investigation, the chargesheet was filed by the concerned Investigating Officer and the case has been registered as R.C.C. No. 117/2014, which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambad. 4. This Court has already rejected the application of applicant nos. 1 to 3. Therefore, the further adjudication of this application is confined to applicant no.4 – Godawari W/o Madhavrao Tidke and applicant no.5 – Madhavrao S/o Rambhau Tidke. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants invited our attention to the allegations in the First Information Report and also the statements of the witnesses, and submits that, even if the allegations in the First Information Report and the statements of the witnesses are considered in its entirety, no offence is disclosed and also there is no sufficient material, so as to prosecute applicant nos. 4 and 5. It is submitted that, applicant no.4, who is sister-in-law of Respondent No. 2, got married before 18 years of the incident. Applicant no.5 is husband of applicant no.4. It is submitted that, they are residing at Panewadi in Jalna district and respondent no.2 and her husband Sunil reside at Lalwadi. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that, the application deserves to be allowed. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant invited our attention to the allegations in the First Information Report and also statements of the witnesses, and submits that, there are specific allegations even against applicant nos. 4 and 5, and those will have to be tested during trial and therefore, this Court may not entertain this application. 7. We have given careful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent/State and the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2. 4 and 5, and those will have to be tested during trial and therefore, this Court may not entertain this application. 7. We have given careful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent/State and the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2. With their able assistance, we have perused the averments in the application, annexures thereto, contents of the First Information Report and the statements of the witnesses, which are accompanied with the chargesheet. 8. Upon careful perusal of the statements of the witnesses, it appears that, what is alleged in the First Information Report against applicant nos. 4 and 5 has been reiterated in their statements. So far present applicants are concerned, the relevant portion from the First Information Report reads thus :- ^^ek>s uanksbZ o uo&;kus ,d&nksu osGsl jksMoj f>aT;k /k:u vks<hr vk.kys o Vªd [kkyh <dywu nsrks vls Eg.kwu eyk ftoar ekj.;kpk iz;Ru dsyk eh R;kaP;k rkoMhrwu lqVqu vkjMk&vksjM dsyhek> h lklq o nksUgh u.kank eyk usgehp Vkspqu cksyrkr] dslkyk /k:u pkiV;k cqDd;kus ekjgk.k djrkr] rq tk; rq oka> vkgsl v'kk izdkjph 'khohxkG o viekukLin okx.kqd nsrkr- vkjksih pkj o ikp ykyokMh ;sFks jkg.;kl vkys vkgsr- ek>s uanksbZ ek>;k uo&;kyk rqyk vkRrkP;k vkRrk nqljh ck;dks d:u nsrks] gk;os Vp rq>h tehu vkgs rq djksMkspk ekyd vkgsl v'kh fpFkko.kh nsrkr** 9. Upon careful perusal of the aforeextracted portion from the First Information Report, it appears that, applicant no.5 is referred as `Nandoi'. His name is not mentioned in the First Information Report. There is no specific date on which such alleged incident had taken place. Even the allegations against applicant no.4 are general in nature. No specific instances mentioning at least involvement or specific role of the present applicants have been stated by Respondent No.2 in the First Information Report. Upon careful perusal of the statements of the witnesses also, it shows that, there are no specific instances quoted or specific dates are given on which, these applicants indulged in illtreating/harassing Respondent No.2 – complainant. Therefore, if the allegations in the First Information Report and the contents of the statements of the witnesses are considered in its entirety and are taken in its face value, trial so far present applicants are concerned, cannot proceed, since the material collected by the prosecution agency is not sufficient and also allegations are vague without material particulars. 10. Therefore, if the allegations in the First Information Report and the contents of the statements of the witnesses are considered in its entirety and are taken in its face value, trial so far present applicants are concerned, cannot proceed, since the material collected by the prosecution agency is not sufficient and also allegations are vague without material particulars. 10. The Supreme Court in the case of "State of Haryana V/s Bhajanlal" { AIR 1992 SC 604 } has laid down following categories, in which the High Court can invoke provisions of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code while considering the prayer for quashing of F.I.R./Chargesheet and the proceedings : 1. Whether the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code, except under an order of Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. 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 applicant; 4. Where the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a 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 F.I.R. 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 provisions in the Code of the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. 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 provisions in the Code of the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 11. Upon perusal of the abovereferred categories, the case in hand would fall in category Nos. 1 and 5. 12. The further proceedings based upon the F.I.R. bearing M-Case No. 3/2013 as against the present applicants would be an exercise in futility and abuse of process of Court. 13. In that view of the matter, the application is allowed. The further proceedings based upon the F.I.R. M-Case No. 3/2013 registered with Police Station, Ambad and the Regular Criminal Case No. 117/2014 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambad stand quashed and set aside, confined to applicant nos. 4 and 5. 14. Rule made absolute in above terms. Application stands disposed of accordingly.