Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1283 (BOM)

VISHAL s/o MAHADEO PADULE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2020-11-02

SHRIKANT D.KULKARNI, T.V.NALAWADE

body2020
JUDGMENT : SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The applicants are seeking quashment of proceeding of Regular Criminal Case No. 194 of 2018 initiated on the basis of charge sheet No. 90 of 2018 submitted by Ambajogai City Police Station arising out of C.R. No. 0293 of 2018. 3. The relevant facts for adjudication of this application in narrow compass are as under :- Smt. Supriya Amol Deshmukh (hereinafter referred to as the “first informant/respondent No. 2”) is resident of Tilak Nagar, Ambajogai. At the relevant point of time, in the year 2018, she was residing along with one Akash Mahadeo Padule resident of Ramaai Chowk, Ambajogai. She has treated Akash Padule like her brother. On 11-6-2018 at about 5.00 p.m. Akash left the house of first informant by saying that he is going to his house but Akash did not turn up. The first informant took search of Akash but did not get any clue. She lodged missing complaint with Ambajogai City Police Station which came to be registered vide missing register No. 23 of 2018. 4. The first informant went to the house of Akash Padule and made enquiry of Akash and his whereabouts. The mother and brother of Akash did not respond well. On the contrary, they made her responsible for missing of Akash. 5. According to the first informant, she was at her house in the midnight of 18-6-2018. The applicant Nos. 1 to 7 and their female family members rushed to the house of first informant at about 11.30 p.m. by Auto Rikshaw and picked up quarrel holding her accountable in the role of missing of Akash. Applicant No. 2 alleged to have torn clothes of the first informant. Applicant No. 1 alleged to have given kicks on her private part. Aunts of Akash alleged to have caught hold hairs of the first informant and assaulted her. Two maternal uncles of Akash caught hold chest of the first informant and she was driven out of her house. Applicant No. 2 alleged to have threatened to the first informant to kill her by showing a sword. Applicant No. 6 also alleged to have torn her clothes and gave slaps on her cheek. Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 alleged to have used obscene words. Applicant No. 2 alleged to have threatened to the first informant to kill her by showing a sword. Applicant No. 6 also alleged to have torn her clothes and gave slaps on her cheek. Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 alleged to have used obscene words. The applicants after assaulting and abusing the first informant, threatened her with dire consequences. The applicants alleged to have outraged the modesty of the first informant. The first informant went to the Ambajogai City Police Station after four days of the incident and lodged FIR. 6. On the basis of the First Information Report lodged by the first informant C.R. No. 0293/2018 came to be registered at Ambajogai City Police Station against the applicants and others for the offences punishable under sections 354, 452, 143, 147, 149, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. The investigation of crime was assigned to Mr S. K. Bodkhe, Assistant Police Sub-Inspector attached to Ambajogai City Police Station. The Investigating Officer Mr S. K. Bodkhe concluded the investigation. The charge sheet came to be filed against the applicants and five others in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1 at Ambajogai which came to be registered as charge sheet No. 90 of 2018. On the basis of chargesheet, proceedings of R.C.C. No. 194/2018 commenced before the J.M.F.C. at Ambajogai 7. The applicants are seeking quashing of proceedings initiated against them vide R.C.C. No. 194 of 2018 pending on the file of J.M.F.C., Ambajogai by invoking provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 8. Heard Mr I.D. Maniyar, learned Counsel for the applicants, Mr G. O. Wattamwar, learned A.P.P. for respondent No. 1 and Mr S. M. Kamble, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2. 9. Perused the copy of charge sheet and annexures thereto with the able assistance of learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A.P.P. 10. Mr Maniyar, learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the alleged incident took place in the midnight of 18-6-2018 and First Information Report came to be registered on 22-6-2018. There was 4 days delay in lodging of the First Information Report. The very foundation of the case is suspicious. No specific role is attributed against the applicants. The First Information Report does not indicate complicity of the applicants in the commission of alleged offences. They have been roped in with ill intention. The complainant has criminal history. There was 4 days delay in lodging of the First Information Report. The very foundation of the case is suspicious. No specific role is attributed against the applicants. The First Information Report does not indicate complicity of the applicants in the commission of alleged offences. They have been roped in with ill intention. The complainant has criminal history. The applicants have been roped in large number only because they happened to be close relatives of Akash Padule. There is no prima facie evidence against the applicants. The first informant has putforth imaginary story by implicating applicants. It would be an abuse of process of law if prosecution is continued. 11. Mr Wattamwar, learned A.P.P. and Mr S. M. Kamble, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that there is prima facie evidence against the applicants in the commission of alleged offences. The first informant had no reason to falsely implicate the applicants in such a large scale. The first informant has given the details of incident with specific role of applicants in the incident. It is not a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings pending on the file of J.M.F.C. Court No.1 at Ambajogai. Let the applicants face the trial. 12. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the applicants, learned A.P.P. and learned Counsel for respondent No. 2. 13. On the scrutiny of the copy of First Information Report, it is noticed by us that alleged incident took place in the intervening night of 18-6-2018. The first informant seems to have lodged the FIR with Ambajogai City Police Station on 22-6-2018. There is considerable delay of 4 days in lodging of First Information Report. Apparently, the First Information Report appears to be a product of exaggeration and imagination if supplementary statement of the first informant is perused. On perusing the supplementary statement of the first informant dated 23-6-2018, it is stated by the first informant before the Investigating Officer that though she had stated in the First Information Report, the persons who made attack on her came by Auto Rickshaw. But she did not know by which means, they had come to her house. She further went on stating that though she had stated in the First Information Report that she was threatened by showing a sword particularly by Nikhil/applicant No. 2 but applicant No. 2/Nikhil was not armed with sword. But she did not know by which means, they had come to her house. She further went on stating that though she had stated in the First Information Report that she was threatened by showing a sword particularly by Nikhil/applicant No. 2 but applicant No. 2/Nikhil was not armed with sword. This reflects on the trustworthiness of the first informant, as to how she has changed her version. Therefore, it is clear that very foundation of the case of the first informant is shaky. We have also perused statements of witnesses namely, Suraj Mahadeo Terkar who happens to be brother of the first informant and one Vimal Sidram Kadam who happens to be a neighbour. On perusing the statements of above said two witnesses, it is noticed by us that both are not the eye witnesses. They seem to have stated before the Investigating Officer on the basis of narration given by the first informant. They have no personal knowledge about the alleged incident. 14. One more aspect needs to be focused. The alleged incident seems to have taken place at about 11.30 p.m. in the night. More than 8 to 10 persons alleged to have rushed to the house of the first informant and picked up quarrel and dragged the first informant out of her house. There was chaos. Had it been such type of incident, naturally, above said two witnesses namely Suraj Terkar and Vimal Kadam would have rushed to the spot. At least, Suraj Terkar who happens to be brother of the first informant would have rushed there and intervene in the quarrel so as to rescue her sister/first informant. No such natural phenomena is coming forth. 15. Medical certificate/injury certificate of the first informant is also not coming forth to corroborate the story coming from the mouth of the first informant. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 has laid down categories where FIR can be quashed. Following are the categories :— 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. Following are the categories :— 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 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 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 F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable 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 on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Having regard to the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (supra), if the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and material placed on record along with the charge sheet are taken into consideration, prima facie, no case is made out against the applicants much less their complicity in the commission of alleged offences. It is found that casual reference to a large number of members of Akash Padule’s family without any active involvement have been arraigned as an accused. Under these circumstances, it would be an abuse of process of law if prosecution is allowed to continue. It is a fit case to exercise powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants. The allegations made in the First Information Report are so absurd and improbable on the basis of which no prudent man would reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient incriminating evidence for proceeding against the applicants. There is no propriety to continue criminal prosecution against the applicants in the above scenario. 17. In the light of the discussion herein before, the application needs to be allowed. Hence, we pass the following order :— ORDER (i) The application for quashing of charge sheet vide No. 90 of 2018 and the proceeding arising thereof vide R.C.C. No. 194 of 2018 pending on the file of the J.M.F.C. at Ambajogai for the offences punishable under sections 354, 452, 143, 147, 149, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). (ii) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). Application allowed.