Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1422 (BOM)

Pravin Homendra Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra

2020-12-09

ANIL S.KILOR, V.M.DESHPANDE

body2020
JUDGMENT : A.S. Kilor, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The matter is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicants are the office bearers of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, (hereinafter referred as “the APMC”) Chandur Bazar, District : Amravati and accused in Crime No.147 of 2018, dated 11/06/2018, which was registered on a criminal complaint lodged by Police Constable Arjun Rameshsingh Parihar against the applicants and nine others for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 429 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 11-(E),(D) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of 1960 and under Sections 117 and 83 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The applicants, by way of present application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, are praying for quashing and setting aside the FIR vide Crime No.147 of 2018. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant- Police Constable-A. R. Parihar, on receiving a secret information on 10.06.2018, reached the spot which was the premises of the APMC and found that in two vehicles the cattle were taken away outside the premises of APMC from gate No.2. The said vehicles were intercepted. On inquiry, it was found that in Mahindra Pick Up vehicle, bearing registration No.MH-29/5623, six bulls and four cows were tied with a rope and they were being transported in cruel manner beyond the capacity of the vehicle. 4. It is further alleged that in another vehicle i.e. Mahindra Pick Up vehicle bearing registration No.MH-27/X-8496, it was found that there were three cows and eight bulls and one bull was already died in the said vehicle. 5. Consequently, those vehicles were taken in custody and after making an inquiry, it was revealed that the cattle were being taken for slaughter purposes. Thereafter, the First Information Report in question was registered against the applicants and other accused persons. The said First Information Report is sought to be quashed and set aside by the present application. 6. We have heard Shri M.P. Kariya, the learned counsel for the applicants and Shri N.S. Rao, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant. 7. Thereafter, the First Information Report in question was registered against the applicants and other accused persons. The said First Information Report is sought to be quashed and set aside by the present application. 6. We have heard Shri M.P. Kariya, the learned counsel for the applicants and Shri N.S. Rao, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant. 7. Shri Kariya, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are the office bearers of the APMC and they are impleaded as accused persons only on the ground that the vehicles, which were carrying the cattle, were seized in the premises of the APMC and on the basis of the same, it has been presumed that the applicants are involved in the alleged offence. 8. He further submits that in the reply filed by the prosecution in this matter, no role is attributed against the applicants and only on the basis of apprehension, which cannot be the basis for implicating them in the offence, the applicants are being harassed by falsely implicating them in the alleged offence. The learned counsel for the applicants, therefore, prays for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report in question. 9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposes the present application on the ground that both the vehicles, which were carrying cattle, were seized from the premises of the APMC and the same is sufficient to prima facie arrive at a conclusion that the applicants being the office bearers of the APMC, are involved in the alleged offence. He, thus, submits that since the offences under which the crime has been registered against the applicants, attract this Court may not exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By arguing so, he prays for dismissal of the present application. 10. To consider the rival contentions of the parties, we have gone through the record and perused the relevant documents filed on record. 11. After going through the contents of the First Information Report, it is revealed that there are no allegations made in the First Information Report against any of the applicants. No specific role has been attributed to any of the applicants. Moreover, in reply also, which has been filed when the investigation was in progress, no specific role has been attributed to any of the applicants. No specific role has been attributed to any of the applicants. Moreover, in reply also, which has been filed when the investigation was in progress, no specific role has been attributed to any of the applicants. The only basis to implead the applicants in the alleged offences, appears to be that the vehicles and cattle which were seized in connection with the alleged offences, were seized from the premises of the APMC. There is no other material available on record to show any involvement of any of the applicants in the alleged offences. 12. Thus, after going through the record and the relevant documents, we are of the considered view that though there is no material available on record, showing any involvement of the applicants in the alleged offences, the offence was registered against the applicants only on the basis that the cattle and the vehicles which were seized in connection with the crime, were seized from the premises of the APMC, which is not sufficient to connect the applicants with the alleged offences. 13. In that view of the matter, in absence of any specific allegation against the applicants or any incriminating material available on record against the applicants in the alleged offences, it would amount to harassment to the applicants, if they are compelled or forced to face the trial before the Criminal Court. In the circumstances, to sub-serve the justice, we pass following order: ORDER : (i) The Criminal Application is allowed. (ii) The First Information Report No.147 of 2018, registered by Police Station, Chandur Bazar, District Amravati against the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 120(B), 429 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 11-(E), (D) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of 1960 and Section 117 and 83 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicants. (iii) Needless to clarify that the non-applicant may proceed against the other accused persons in Crime No.147 of 2018. (iv) No order as to costs.