High Court
Legal Reasoning
10APPLN.268.2023 n APPLN.21.2023.odtapplicant has abused the informant in filthy language. He threatenedto kill the informant. He torn her blouse. All these acts establish theessential ingredients of Sections 354, 324, 294, 504 and 506 of theIPC. There is a prima-facie strong evidence against the applicant. Insuch facts and circumstances, there is no justification for quashingthe report and the proceedings against the applicant who is R.T.O.officer. 15We have perused the charge-sheet, particularly, thereport and the statements of witnesses in Criminal Application No.21of 2023. The witnesses have supported to the informant. The incidenttook place in the R.T.O. office. Medical certificate of the informantshows that he sustained three injuries i.e. blunt trauma over left side ofupper back, blunt trauma over chest and blunt trauma over lefttemporal region of head. The overt acts of the applicants, resultinginto injury to the informant, is a strong evidence against the applicants.Having regard to the nature of allegations and the stage ofinvestigation, we are of the view that this is not a fit case for exercisingof inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure,1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”).16Considering the facts and circumstances of both the casesand reasons discussed above, we are of the view that no case is made 11APPLN.268.2023 n APPLN.21.2023.odtout for exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashingof the FIRs and the proceedings by all the applicants. Both the FIRscontain specific allegations against the applicants and disclosecognizable offences. The matters require thorough investigation andappreciation of evidence, which can only be done during trial.Therefore, invocation of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., atthis stage, is not warranted. Both the applications deserve to berejected. Hence, both the applications stand rejected. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]nga
Arguments
1APPLN.268.2023 n APPLN.21.2023.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 268 OF 2023Sanjay S/o Vishnu AadeAge: 48 years, Occu. RTO Latur,R/o. Vrundawan Apartment,Behind Gandharv Hotel, Room No. 106,Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur.… ApplicantVersus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through: Investigation Officer,Police Station Vivekanand Chowk, Tq. & Dist. Latur2.Jamuna W/o Ramesh JadhavAge: 60 years, Occu. HousewifeR/o. Khatkali Bypass, Hingoli,Tq. & Dist. Hingoli.… Respondents (Resp. No.2 Orig. Complainant)...Mr. R. S. Deshmukh, Senior Advocate, i/b Ms. Pratibha H. Suryawanshi,Advocate for Applicants.Mr. A. D. Wange, APP for Respondent No.1 / State.Mr. Kuldip S. Kahalekar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.…ANDCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 21 OF 20231.Kanchan w/o Sanjay AdeAge 38 years, Occu. Household R/o C/o Rameshrao Jadhav, Plot No.4, Near Rani Sati Temple, 2APPLN.268.2023 n APPLN.21.2023.odtGanga Nagar, Hingoli, Taluka and District Hingoli.2.Jamunabai Rameshrao Jadhav,Age 62 years, Occu. Household, R/o as above.3.Seema w/o Balaji RathodAge 40 years, Occu. Household, R/o Ratnai Niwas, Behind Hanuman Temple, Hanuman Gad, Nanded, Tq. And Dist. Nanded4.Balaji s/o Poma Rathod,Age 52 years, Occu. Business, R/o as above.5.Pooja w/o Suresh Chavan,Age 34 years, Occu. Household, R/o 13-1-55/E/62, Awanti Nagar, Moti Nagar, Bala Nagar, District Ranga Reddy – 500 018(Andhra Pradesh)6.Suresh s/o Ramesh Chavan Age 40 years, Occu. Business, R/o as above.7.Rajkumar s/o Rameshrao Jadhav,Age 36 years, Occu. Advocate, R/o Namaskar Chowk, Opp. City Pride Hotel, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.… Applicants(Org. Accused) Versus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through the Police Inspector, Vivekanand Police Station, Latur.2.Sanjay Vishnu Ade,Age 45 years, Occu. Service, 3APPLN.268.2023 n APPLN.21.2023.odtR/o Room No.106, Vrundawan Apartment, Behind Gandharva Hotel, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur.Office Address:R.T.O. Office, Latur.… Respondents(No.2 Orig. Complainant) ...Mr. Kuldip S. Kahalekar, Advocates for Applicants.Mr. A. D. Wange, APP for Respondent No.1 / State.Mr. R. S. Deshmukh, Senior Advocate, i/b Ms. Pratibha H. Suryawanshi,Advocate for Respondent No.2.…CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE :30th April, 2025.O R D E R: (Per Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.)1Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 2These are applications for quashment of the counterreports and the proceedings.3Criminal Application No.268 of 2023 is filed for quashing ofthe FIR bearing C.R. No.666 of 2022, registered with VivekanandChowk Police Station, District Latur, for the offences punishable underSections 354, 324, 294, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 4APPLN.268.2023 n APPLN.21.2023.odt(for short “the IPC”) as well as the proceedings in R.C.C. No.341 of2023, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,Taluka and District Latur.4Criminal Application No.21 of 2023 is filed for quashing ofthe FIR bearing C.R. No.555 of 2022, registered with VivekanandChowk Police Station, Latur, for the offences punishable underSections 143, 147, 323, 332, 353, 504, 506 of the IPC as well as theproceedings in R.C.C. No.1983 of 2022, pending in the Court oflearned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur. 5In Criminal Application No.268 of 2023, the applicant is theson-in-law of the informant. The informant / respondent No.2 averredin the report that she is mother-in-law of the applicant. Her daughter –Kanchan is the wife of the applicant. The informant further stated thather daughter – Kanchan was residing with her in-laws at Amravati.There, she was not properly treated by her mother-in-law. Therefore,she decided to reside with the applicant at Latur. The applicant isserving at RTO Office, at Latur. He was not allowing his wife andchildren to stay with him. He insisted Kanchan to sign on a blank bondpaper. When her daughter – Kanchan refused to do so, the applicantstopped to go there. Kanchan’s in-laws were not providing food andwater to her. The informant stated that her granddaughter had been 5APPLN.268.2023 n APPLN.21.2023.odtunwell for the past four months. Her daughter – Kanchan requestedfinancial help from her mother-in-law for the daughter’s medicaltreatment. Her mother-in-law refused the same and stated that shewould neither bring any items for the house nor provide any money.Her mother-in-law instructed her to ask the applicant for money.Therefore, the informant’s daughter decided to go to Latur along withher two children to meet the applicant. On 6th August, 2022, Kanchanmade phone call to the informant and told her that she was leaving forLatur. At that time, the informant said to Kanchan to not to go therealone. She will come with her. The informant alongwith Kanchan andgrandchildren went to Latur. They went to applicant’s residencelocated at Vrundawan Apartment, Room No.106, behind GandharvaHotel. Upon reaching, they found the house was locked and theapplicant had gone somewhere. Several locals tried contacting theapplicant on his mobile phone, but his mobile phone was switched off.The informant and her daughter took shelter at a nearbyacquaintance’s house, who resided opposite the applicant’s residence.6The informant further averred that on 8th August 2022, ataround 08:55 am, the applicant returned home. At that time, theinformant’s daughter alongwith her two children approached theapplicant’s residence and rang the doorbell. When the applicantopened the door, he immediately began abusing her in filthy language 6APPLN.268.2023 n APPLN.21.2023.odtand asked why she had come there. He then physically assaulted herby kicks and fists blows. Kanchan made hue and cry. Upon hearingthe same, the informant and several local men and women gathered.The informant came out and saw the applicant assaulting herdaughter. When she intervened and requested him to speak calmlyand allow the children inside the house, the applicant manhandled heras well. He physically assaulted the informant by grabbing her,pushing her and tearing her blouse. He also abused her in filthylanguage. Thereafter, he broke down the informant’s Mangalsutra andexpelled her, her daughter and two grandchildren out of the house andthreatened them by saying that if they dared to enter the house again,he would kill them. Therefore, she lodged the report against theapplicant.7In Criminal Application No.21 of 2023, applicant No.1 isthe wife of informant / respondent No.2. Applicant No.2 is the mother-in-law of the informant. Applicant Nos.3 and 5 are the sisters-in-law ofthe informant. Applicant Nos.4 and 6 are the husbands of applicantNos.3 and 5, respectively. Applicant No.7 is the brother-in-law of theinformant. 8It is averred in the report by respondent No.2 / informantthat on 13th September, 2022, at around 10:00 a.m., the informant 7APPLN.268.2023 n APPLN.21.2023.odtreported for duty in uniform at the RTO Office, Latur, and was carryingout official work. At around 12:00 noon, all the applicants cametogether to the fitness track of the R.T.O. office where the informantwas performing his duty. All the applicants confronted the informant,asking why he had abandoned them and hidden himself there, andwhy he was not returning home. They started to abuse him. They saidthat they would eliminate him on the spot. The informant requestedthem not to speak to him in such a manner, as he was on duty at thetime, and tried to convince them. However, the applicants caught holdhim and started to assault him. They caught hold his shirt and torn it.They beat him. After hearing the quarrel, the officers from the RTOOffice namely Vijay Bhoye, Manmath Kudale, Sunil Khandagale andManoj Lonari came there and intervened the quarrel. At that time, theapplicants threatened the informant that they will get him dismissedfrom his job and kill him. Subsequently, the informant went to the policestation and underwent a medical examination. Thereafter, he lodgedthe report. 9The learned senior counsel for the applicant in CriminalApplication No.268 of 2023 submits that the applicant is falselyimplicated in the crime with a view to harass. There are general andvague allegations against him. There is no cogent and acceptableevidence against the applicant. He lastly prayed to allow the 8APPLN.268.2023 n APPLN.21.2023.odtapplication by quashing the report and the proceedings.10The learned counsel for the applicants in CriminalApplication No.21 of 2023 also submits that the applicants are falselyimplicated in the crime. There are general and vague allegationsagainst them. There is no cogent and acceptable evidence against theapplicant. He lastly prayed to allow the application by quashing thereport and the proceedings. 11The learned APP for the State as well as the learnedAdvocates for the informant strongly opposed both the applicationsand submitted that the applicants are involved in the serious crime.Their names are mentioned in the report. Both the sides have lodgedthe FIR against each other. Considering the gravity of the allegationsand the role attributed to each applicant, the learned APP lastly prayedto reject both the application. 12Here, it is relevant to refer to the decision of theHonourable Supreme Court in Mohammad Wajid and Another Vs.State of U.P. and Another, reported in, 2023 SCC Online SC 951;2023 INSC 683, whereunder the Honourable Supreme Court heldthus:-“34.……. it will not be just enough for the Court to look 9APPLN.268.2023 n APPLN.21.2023.odtinto the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for thepurpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredientsto constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. Infrivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a dutyto look into many other attending circumstances emergingfrom the record of the case over and above the avermentsand, if need be, with due care and circumspection try toread in between the lines. The Court while exercising itsjurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 ofthe Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage ofa case but is empowered to take into account the overallcircumstances leading to the initiation/registration of thecase as well as the materials collected in the course ofinvestigation....”13A reference also can be made to the judgment in the caseof CBI Vs. Aryan Singh, reported in, 2023 SCC Online SC 379, inwhich the Honourable Supreme Court held as under:- “Para 10… As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stageof discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings,while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C.,the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial.”14We have perused the charge-sheet, particularly, the reportand the statements of witnesses in Criminal Application No.268 of2023. From the perusal of the report, it is establishing that the