High Court

Legal Reasoning

cria-337.241 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.337 OF 20241) Faizaan Ahmed Chisti, Age-37 years, Occu:Business, R/o-Pradhan Naampali, Hyderabad, Telengana,2) Majhid Sohebbhai Maisuri, Age-57 years, Occu:Business, R/o-Erakunda Road, Petrol Pump R.R., Hyderabad, Telengana. ...APPLICANTS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Rahuri, District-Ahmednagar,2) Nisaar Hasan Pathan, Age-40 years, Occu:Business, Kolsa Vastu Gruh Paat, Taluka-Rahuri, District-Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. R.R. Deshpande Advocate h/f. Ms. Priyanka R. Deshpande Advocate for Applicants. Ms. R.P. Gour, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State. Ms. Sunita G. Sonawane Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 11th AUGUST, 2025 cria-337.242ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] :1.Present Application has been filed, initially for quashing theFirst Information Report (for short “the FIR”) vide CrimeNo. 1290 of 2023, registered with Rahuri Police Station, Taluka-Rahuri, District-Ahmednagar, on 17th November 2023, for theoffence punishable under Sections 363, 323, 504, 506 and 507of the Indian Penal Code, and later on by way of amendment, forquashing the Charge-sheet i.e. the proceedings in R.C.C. No.276of 2024, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate FirstClass, Rahuri, District-Ahmendagar. 2.Heard learned Advocate Mr. R.R. Deshpande holding forlearned Advocate Ms. Priyanka Deshpande for the applicants,learned APP Ms. R.P. Gour for respondent No.1 and learnedAdvocate Ms. Sunita Sonawane for respondent No.2. 3.Learned Advocate for the applicants submits that theinformant is 40 years old person and it is stated that he waskidnapped. In fact, out of the offences under which thecharge-sheet has been filed, only Section 363 of the Indian PenalCode is the cognizable offence. Rest are non-cognizable offences.For proving an offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal cria-337.243Code, we will have to consider the definition of ‘kidnapping’under Section 359 of the Indian Penal Code, which states thatkidnapping is of two kinds; one is kidnapping from India andanother is kidnapping from lawful guardianship. Section 360 ofthe Indian Penal Code covers kidnapping from India, wherein theperson should be taken out of India without his consent andSection 361 of the Indian Penal Code provides for kidnappingfrom lawful guardianship. A minor under sixteen years of age if amale, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or any personof unsound mind, is taken away or kept away from the lawfulguardianship, then it would fall under this category. Theinformant is not a minor and he was not taken out of India andtherefore, Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code will not beattracted. The applicants are residents of Hyderabad and theyare businessmen. They had no connection with Rahuri in theform of commercial transactions. Further, the contents of the FIRwould show that the cousin brother of the informant was plyingtaxi from Shirdi to Shani Shinganapur. The said cousin brothercame in contact with applicant No.1 and therefore, they wereknowing each other. On the request of the informant, theapplicants had provided some financial assistance for thepurpose of improvement in the business of the informant. Now, cria-337.244the informant has no intention to return/repay the said amountand therefore, false allegations have been made. It would be anabuse of process of law if the applicants are asked to face thetrial.4.Per contra, learned APP as well as learned Advocate forrespondent No.2 strongly opposed the Application and learnedAPP strongly submitted that even if it can be said that theoffence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code is not madeout, yet the offence is certainly made out punishable underSection 364 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned APP and learnedAdvocate for respondent No.2 have submitted that all thedetails, as to how the informant was abducted, have been givenin the FIR and those are supported by the statements ofneighbouring persons. Therefore, this is not a fit case where thepowers can be exercised by this Court under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure. 5.At the outset, we would like to say that mentioning of thewrong section by the investigating agency in the charge-sheetwill not give any advantage to the accused. Whatever sectionsare quoted in the FIR or the charge-sheet, will not stop or cria-337.245restrict the powers of the learned Magistrate or this Court fromtaking cognizance of the offences and the matter, as the casemay be. We would go further and say that if the facts and thematerial in investigation reveals that some more offences aretranspired, then certainly the learned Magistrate would bejustified in taking cognizance of the offence under the addedSections though those might not have been quoted by theinvestigating officer.6.From the contents of the FIR and the charge-sheet it canbe seen that certainly the informant is a major person, he wasnot taken out of India and was not taken away from theguardianship and therefore, Section 363 of the Indian PenalCode will not get attracted. However, Section 362 of the IndianPenal Code defines ‘abduction’. It is stated that whoever by forcecompels, or by any deceitful means induces, any person to gofrom any place, is said to abduct that person. Section 364 of theIndian Penal Code makes provision for punishment if suchabduction is in order to commit murder of that person or may beso disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered. Section364-A of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment forkidnapping or abducting any person for ransom. cria-337.2467.Now, the facts in the present matter are that the informantruns a toy shop at Kolhar Budruk. His factory of manufacturingtoys is on Tambhere road. His cousin brother Aamir used to plytaxi between Shirdi to Shani Shinganapur and he came to knowaccused No.1, who is from Naampali, Hyderabad. It is statedthat applicant No.1 wanted to purchase a plot at Shirdi. Thecousin brother has then introduced applicant No.1 to theinformant. The informant had then shown a plot at Shirdi toapplicant No.1 but he had not purchased it. Thereafter, aboutthree years prior to the FIR, the informant had taken an amountof Rs.50,00,000/- from applicant No.1 on the interest at the rateof 3%, for the purpose of his company and according to theinformant, he has repaid the principal amount as well as interestto the extent of Rs.45,00,000/- to applicant No.1. Around3.00 p.m., on 8th November 2023, the applicants went to thehouse of the informant in a white coloured Fortuner Car bearingNo.AP-22-AG-0666. They abused the informant, forced him to sitin the Car. They were resisted by the wife and mother of theinformant, however, wife and mother were assaulted. Wheninformant asked them as to why they were taking him along withthem, it was told to him that he will not be allowed to go till he cria-337.247repays the entire amount. He was taken towards Shirdi and inthe midway he was assaulted and then the Car was stopped nearReddy Hotel, Shirdi, where they gave him tea to drink and thengave threats that he should repay the amount or otherwise hewould be involved in false case. Informant says that somehow byrequest with folded hands, he got himself rescued. However,thereafter also on phone the applicants had given threat to himstating that if he does not pay the rest of the amount, he wouldbe killed. Taking into consideration this story, certainly it can besaid that it was for ransom. 8.Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code provides thatwhoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause thatperson to be secretly and wrongfully confined, then he would beliable for imprisonment. Thus, it can be said that the facts of thecase would give rise to the offence under Section 364-A orSection 365 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR is supported bythe statements of wife and mother of the informant. Anotherwitness Aasif Rehman Sayyad is related to the informant and hestates that he was present in the house of the informant as hehad come there for some work. Witness Nitin Sanjay Ohol statesthat around 3.30 p.m., on 8th November 2023, he heard the cria-337.248voice of quarrel in the neighbourhood and therefore, he cameout. He found that two persons were taking the informantforcibly in the Fortuner Car. The wife and the mother of theinformant were resisting them but by manhandling and thenassaulting them, the informant was taken away. Thus, thereappears to be prima facie evidence to show the cognizableoffence and therefore, this is not a fit case where we shouldexercise our inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure. 9.The Application stands rejected. [SANJAY A. DESHMUKH] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE asb/AUG25