High Court · 2023
Legal Reasoning
(1) 904- Cri. W.P. No. 357-2024.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 357 OF 20241.Raju S/o Babarao Tekale,2.Yash S/o Ashokrao Tekale,3.Tejas Raju Tekale,4.Santosh Satwaji Tekale,5.Govindrao Paghaji Tekale,6.Sahebrao S/o Paghaji Tekale,7.Vicky @ Chandrakant Satwaji Tekale8.Narayan Balaji Tekale,9.Sandeep Raosaheb Tekale,10.Devanand Kamaji Tekale,11.Paghaji S/o Sahebrao Tekale,12.Ashok S/o Yadoji Tekale,13.Shamrao Yadoji Tekale,14.Satwaji Yadoji Tekale,15.Digambar Namdeorao Kadam,16.Anand Govindrao Tekale,17.Ajay Babasaheb Kadam,18.Ramkishan Namdeorao Kadam,19.Sanchit Ashokarao Tekale,20.Akshay Ramkishan Kadam,21.Jairam Raosaheb Tekale,
Legal Reasoning
(2) 904- Cri. W.P. No. 357-2024.odt22.Vijay Digambrrao Deshmukh ( Kadam),23.Dr. Vilas S/o Digambarrao Kadam,24.Dr. Gorakhnath S/o Ganeshrao Tekale,25.Anuradha Digambar Tekale,26.Meera Ramkishan Kadam,27.Aruna Kamaji Tekale,28.Jyoti Paghaji Tekale,29.shital Santosh Tekale,30.Gajanan Baburao Tekale,31.Arvind Ganeshrao Tekale,32.Dnyaneshwar Paghaji Tekale,33.Dtta Babarao Tekale,34.Rohan Gajanan Tekale,35.Shriram Kamaji Tekale,36.Tukaram Sahebrao Tekale,37.Praveen Ganeshrao TekaleAll are permanent resident of :Amrabad, Taluka Ardhapura,District Nanded. ..Petitioners VERSUS1.Pandurang Vitthal Panchal,Age : 53 years, Occ. Agriculture, InformantResident of : at village Amrabad,Taluka Ardhapur, District Nanded. 2.The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents (3) 904- Cri. W.P. No. 357-2024.odt….Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Mukul S. KulkarniA.P.P. for Respondent/State : Mrs. S.N. DeshmukhAdvocate for Respondent No.1 : Ms. A. S. Jadhav ….CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.DATED : 25th JUNE 2025ORDER:- 1.This petition is filed under Article 226 and Article 227 of theConstitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure for quashing of Crime No. 248 of 2023 registered withArdhapur Police Station, District Nanded for the offences punishableunder Sections 143, 147, 454, 457, 380, 435, 436, 342, 427, 430,504and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.2.On 25th July 2023, respondent No.1 lodged F.I.R. in questionalleging that he has two brothers, namely, Janaradhan and Sahebraoand Maruti Panchal is his uncle. They all have houses and agriculturallands at village Amrabad. Gut No. 50 admeasuring 1 H 13 R landstands in the name of informant. Uncle Maroti, has agricultural landin Gut No. 51 which is admesuring 57 R, and in Gut No. 50admeasuring 2 H and 19 R. Janaradhan Vitthal Panchal has 73 R landin Gut No. 50 and in Gut No. 51 admeasuring 34 R land and in GutNo. 52 admeasuring 13 R. Gut No. 52 stands in the name of his father (4) 904- Cri. W.P. No. 357-2024.odtadmeasuring 70 R6 pt. All have temporary sheds and houses in theirrespective lands.3.On 28.11.2022, the common D.P. was burst. Due to said dispute,members of Tekale and Kadam family have lodged false crime againstthe informant and others at C.R. No.321 of 2022 and in that crime heand his relatives were arrested and thereafter they were released onbail. A condition was imposed that from the date of grant of bail, forone month, they should not enter in their village. Most of thepopulation of their village is of Maratha community. In view of thepolitical connection of Tekale and Kadam family and their influence onthe village, they did not enter the village. On 12.07.2023, when hewent to Amrabad, he saw that his house, house of his brothersSahebrao and Janaradhan and uncle Maroti, father Vitthal Panchaland the houses situated in the agricultural lands and agricultural landswere damaged. Therefore, he inquired with his brother LaxmikantTukaram Panchal, Maroti Sambhaji Panchal, relatives, namely,Sandeep Tukaram Panchal, Ganesh Machindra Panchal, ShivajiPandurang Panchal, who were staying in the village. They told that thesaid damage is caused in their presence by the members of Tekale andKadam, family between the period from 29.11.2022 to 31.01.2022.4. The newly planted sugarcane crop in Gut No. 50 of MarotiPanchal was damaged by the accused persons by sending cattle in the (5) 904- Cri. W.P. No. 357-2024.odtagricultural field. The household articles, grains, clothes, furniture andentire house of Janaradhan Viithal Panchal situated in the filed wereburnt down by Pagaji Tekale, Sanjay Tekale, Dnyaneshwar Tekale,Santosh Tekale, Viki Satwaji Tekale, Anand Tekale, Sahebrao Tekale,Ajay Kadam, Ramkishan kadam, Raju Tekale, Sancheet Tekale andAkshay Kadam. They also burnt down the carpentry equipments, 16Bags of Chemical Fertilizers were stolen and remaining teakwoodfurniture, 2 Sofa-set, 2 cots, four frames and four windows were burntdown.5.They have also stolen fertilizer’s bags and damaged agriculturalequipments, electric motor starter, PVC pipes, bullock cart in the fieldsof Sahebrao Panchal, Maroti Panchal and Gorakh Panchal. Theinformant also stated in the F.I.R. that 30 days before lodging F.I.R.when father of the informant Vitthal had gone to Nanded to attendmarriage ceremony and while returning to village along with brotherTukaram Panchal half Kilometer away from village Amrabad thepersons, namely, Ashok Tekale, Santosh Tekale, Raju Tekale, SancheetTekale, Digamber Kadam, Ajay Kadam, Arvind Tekale, Rohan Tekale,Shriram Tekale, Ramkishan Tekale, Pagaji Tekale, Sanjay Tekale,Tukaram Tekale, Pravin Tekale and members of Tekale and Kadamfamily had stopped his father and that time Ashok Tekale threatenedto his father stating that if he and other family members entered in the (6) 904- Cri. W.P. No. 357-2024.odtvillage, he would kill them and restrained them from entering thevillage. After the said incident when Tukaram Panchal went near hishouse, that time motor cycles which were parked in front of his houseand as well as doors, windows of house were damaged by aforesaidpersons. Then they also committed trespass in the house of informantby breaking down the door damaging electric motor in the court-yardand have stolen 1 Tola golden Necklace, 12 Gram ear rings, and silverbangles of 50 Tola of his mother, golden Necklace of his wifeweighing 15 Grams, 4 Tola gold bangles and golden ear ringsweighing 7 Grams, and also bangles weighing 4 Tolas, goldenNecklace of 2 & 1/2 Tolas golden earrings of 7 Gram, 5 Gram goldfinger ring belonging to his daughter-in-law, cash of Rs.71,000/- andimportant documents and receipts kept in cupboard of his house. Theyhave also stolen golden ear rings, golden necklace, golden banglesweighing 3 Tola, which were kept in the house of his brotherJanardhan Panchal. They have also stolen 7 golden earrings weighing7 Grams, golden Mangalsutra weighing 25 Grams, golden banglesweighing 3 Tolas belonging to wife of his younger brother SahebraoPanchal and also stolen file containing documents of complainant.This incident was witnessed by informant’s brother, namely, LaxmikantPanchal and Tukaram and the persons, namely, Ashok Tekale, GorakhTekale, Yash Tekale, Vilas Kadam, Shamrao Tekale, RamkrishnaKadam, Vijay Kadam, Shriram Tekale, Akshay Kadam, Pagaji Tekalle, (7) 904- Cri. W.P. No. 357-2024.odtTukaram Tekale, Viki Tekale, Digamber Kadam, Sancheet Tekale,Narayan Tekale, Santosh Tekale, Raju Tekale were involved in theincident. After this incident, they made an application to police forprotection and along with police party, they entered in the village. Atthat time, video shooting conducted by police of houses andagricultural fields. They found that approximately damage of Rs.70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakh) had been caused by familymembers of Tekale and Kadam.6.After registration of crime, investigation was conducted by thepolice and charge sheet came to be filed on 19.02.2023. Hence, thepresent petition for quashing of F.I.R. and charge sheet.7.Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for theState and learned Advocate for the first respondent/complainant.8.Perused the petition, documents placed on record and thecharge sheet. It is a matter of record that in the month of November2022, one Electricity Distribution Panel Transmission ( for short ‘D.P’.)got damaged and meeting of villagers was called for collectingcontribution for repairing of the said D.P. In the said meeting, disputearose amongst the villagers, and, the respondent No.1 and hisaccomplices assaulted petitioner Nos. 1, 17, 13 to 37. At the instanceof petitioner No.35, namely, Shriram Kamaji Tekale, the F.I.R vide C.R. (8) 904- Cri. W.P. No. 357-2024.odtNo. 321/2022 was registered against respondent No.1 and hisaccomplices at Ardhapur Police Station, Taluka Ardhapur, DistrictNanded for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,148, 149, 307, 324, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, underSection 4/25 of the Arms Act and under Section 135 of theMaharashtra Police Act. Respondent No.1 is accused No.6 in the saidcrime. Respondent No.1 was arrested on 28.11.2022 in connectionwith the said crime and was released on bail by order dated01.03.2023, with a condition not to enter the village Amrabad for aperiod of one month, from the date of release. Charge sheet is filed inthe said case on 19.02.2023.9.For the incident dated 28.11.2022, from the side of respondentNo.1, Sahebrao Vitthal Panchal has lodged F.I.R. with Ardhapur PoliceStation against some of the petitioners, which is registered at C.R.No. 0322 of 2022. Charge sheet is filed in the said crime on08.08.2023. Thus, there appears animosity between both the parties. In thebackdrop of this, respondent No.1 lodged the F.I.R in question allegingcommission of offence between 29.11.2022 to 31.01.2023, makingallegations narrated in paragraph No.3 (supra).10.It is pertinent to note that, there is delay of 7 months in lodgingthe F.I.R. Explanation for delay that the first respondent was in jail at (9) 904- Cri. W.P. No. 357-2024.odtthe relevant time and therefore, he could not lodge the F.I.R, isunacceptable. In the F.I.R. itself, the first respondent has alleged thathe was informed about the commission of crime by LaxmikantTukaram Panchal, Maroti Sambhaji Panchal, Sandeep TukaramPanchal, Ganesh Machindra Panchal, Shivaji Pandurang Panchal. If theaccused has really committed offence as alleged in the F.I.R, thesepersons, who are close relatives of the first respondent, who informedhim about the alleged crime, would have gone and lodged F.I.R.11.The allegations of burning of sugarcane crop by some of thepetitioners is falsified by intimation dated 12.12.2022 given by MarotiPanchal to the Sugar Factory at Degaon, informing that, he hadplanted 5 Acres of sugarcane crop in Gut No.51, but the saidsugarcane crop was burnt due to some natural calamities, therefore,the said sugarcane be taken away for crushing. Apart from thestatement of close relatives of the first respondent, there is absolutelyno material on record to connect the petitioners with the allegedcrime. There is no recovery from any of the petitioners. Vague,general and omnibus allegations are levelled against the petitioners,and total 37 members of two families are implicated in the presentcrime. Some of the petitioners are not even residing in villageAmrabad.12. On perusal of the F.I.R. and the charge sheet, it is clear that, (10) 904- Cri. W.P. No. 357-2024.odteven if the allegations made in the first information report and thematerial collected during the investigation are taken at their facevalue and accepted in their entirety, they do not disclose commissionof any offence and make out a case against the accused. The criminalproceedings against the petitioners is manifestly attended with malafide and the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulteriormotive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioners and with a view tospite them due to personal grudge.13.In the peculiar facts of the present case, the allegations made inthe F.I.R. are absurd and inherently improbable, on the basis of whichno prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there issufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners.14.In State of Haryana and Others, Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others(AIR 1992 SC 604), the Apex Court has laid down the categories ofcases in which the High Court may exercise powers under Article 226of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure. They are as follows :-(1)Where the allegations made in the FirstInformation Report or the complaint, even if they aretaken at their face value and accepted in theirentirety do not prima facie constitute any offence ormake out a case against the accused. (11) 904- Cri. W.P. No. 357-2024.odt(2) Where the allegations in the First InformationReport and other materials, if any, accompanying theF.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifyingan investigation by police officers under S. 156(1) ofthe Code except under an order of a Magistrate withinthe purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.(3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made inthe FIR or complaint and the evidence collected insupport of the same do not disclose the commission ofany offence and make out a case against the accused.(4)Where, the allegations in the F.I.R do notconstitute a cognizable offence but constitute only anon-cognizable offence, no investigation is permittedby a police officer without an order of a Magistrate ascontemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.(5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaintare so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis ofwhich no prudent person can ever reach a justconclusion that there is sufficient ground forproceeding against the accused.(6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted inany of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to theinstitution and continuance of the proceedings and/ orwhere there is a specific provision in the Code or theconcerned Act, providing efficacious redress for thegrievance of the aggrieved party. (12) 904- Cri. W.P. No. 357-2024.odt(7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestlyattended with mala fide and/or where theproceeding is maliciously instituted with anulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on theaccused and with a view to spite him due toprivate and personal grudge.15.The present case falls in category Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 7. Therefore,continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners is an abuse ofprocess of law and Court.16.Learned Advocate for the first respondent has opposed thepetition by relying on Punit Beriwala Vs. The State of NCT of Delhiand Others (Criminal Appeal No. 1834 of 2025). According to him,when there are cross cases, the High Court should not quash one case.The said decision is rendered in different facts. In that case, therewere two cross F.I.Rs and the Apex Court was of the view that both theF.I.Rs were required to be holistically investigated. Such are not thefacts of the present case, therefore, this ruling is of no help to the caseof the first respondent.17.Learned Advocate for the first respondent and learned A.P.P.could not point out any material showing the involvement of thepetitioners in the present crime. 18.For the afforested reasons, the petition succeeds. Hence theorder :- (13) 904- Cri. W.P. No. 357-2024.odtORDER(I)The proceedings of Sessions Case No. 6 of 2025, pending beforethe learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded arising out of FirstInformation Report vide Crime No. 248 of 2023, dated 25.07.2023registered with Ardhapur Police Station, Taluka Ardhapur, DistrictNanded for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 454, 457.380, 435, 436, 342, 427, 430, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Codealong with charge sheet, is hereby quashed and set aside. (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ) JUDGE JUDGEY.S.K.