High Court

Legal Reasoning

17 APPLN.2335.2025.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.7 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2335 OF 202501.Haridas S/o Pralhad Kshirsagar,Age: 46 years, Occup.: Service, R/o: Vidyanagar, Barshi Road, Beed Tq. and Dist. Beed.02.Vishswas S/o Pralhad Kshirsagar,Age: 47 years, Occup.: Service, R/o: Vidyanagar, Barshi Road, Beed Presently Residing at Kalambnuri Tq. and Dist. Hingoli.03.Anjali D/o Shriniwas Adgaonkar@ Anjali W/o Bhawanrao Deshpande, Age: 52 years, Occup.: Service, R/o: Bangar Nagar Hingoli Tq. and Dist. Hingoli.… ApplicantsVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough: In-charge Police Inspector, Hingoli Rural Tq. and Dist. Hingoli.2.Vilas S/o Chandrakant Joshi,Age: 47 years, Occup.: Private Service, R/o: Antulenagar, Balsond Tq. & Dist. Hingoli.… Respondents......Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Counsel, a/w Mr. Harsh A. Jadhav, i/b Mr. Sandip R.Sapkal, Advocates for Applicants.Smt. R. P. Gour, APP for Respondent No.1 / State.... 27 APPLN.2335.2025.odtCORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE :11th July, 2025. Per Court:.Present application has been filed for quashing theproceedings in R.C.C. No.338 of 2019 and Session Case No.124 of2019, pending before the learned Sessions Court, Hingoli, for theoffence punishable under Sections 307, 452, 323, 504 and 506 readwith 34 of the Indian Penal Code, arising out of FIR vide C.R. No.48 of2019, dated 5th March, 2019, registered with the Hingoli (Rural) PoliceStation, District Hingoli, for the offence punishable under Sections 452,323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2Heard Mr. V. D. Sapkal, learned Senior Counsel alongwithMr. Harsh A. Jadhav, Advocate, instructed by Mr. Sandip R. Sapkal,learned counsel for the applicants and the learned APP for therespondent No.1 / State. 3The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicantshas taken us through the entire charge-sheet and submits that there isalready the civil dispute pending in respect of the property in question.The relationship between applicant No.3 and respondent No.2 is thatof brother-in-law and wife’s sister. The immovable property was 37 APPLN.2335.2025.odtbelonging to the mother of applicant No.3. The wife of the informantexpired in 2016 and the mother-in-law of respondent No.2 and themother of applicant No.3, Sudhatai Shriniwas Adgaonkar, expired in2017. The informant states that he got married to Vaishali in 1999 andsince then he was residing with his mother-in-law. Applicant No.3 andher another sister Rupali Kulkarni are married long back. Theinformant contends that his mother-in-law has left a Will in favour of hiswife, however, the civil dispute is pending with the Civil Court. He thenquotes the incident dated 5th March, 2019, which had allegedly takenplace at 09:45 am. He alleges that all the applicants came andapplicant No.3 had poured kerosene upon his person and when hestarted raising voice, a tenant in the building Baburao Haral came. Atthat time, applicant No.3 was about to ignite the matchstick and othertwo applicants were holding iron rod. Baburao snatched the matchboxfrom the hands of applicant No.3. However, applicant Nos.1 and 2 hadassaulted the informant as well as Baburao. Applicant No.3 is statedto have given threats to respondent No.2 and asked him to vacate thepremises. In the meantime, another neighbor Gunaji Pole also cameto the spot and then all the three applicants left. The contents of thisFIR will not attract the ingredients of Section 307 of IPC, as there wasno attempt and before anything can be done, it is alleged that even thematchbox was snatched. The factual aspect, which can be said to bethere that Sudhatai, mother, had sold the property to applicant No.3 47 APPLN.2335.2025.odtand thereafter, applicant No.3 had sold the said property to applicantNos.1 and 2 by sale-deed dated 23rd January, 2019. On 27th March,2019, applicant Vishwas had lodged FIR vide C.R. No.78 of 2019 withHingoli (Rural) Police Station, District Hingoli, for the offencepunishable under Section 324 etc. of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s) and3(2) (v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Preventionof Atrocities) Act. Therefore, the relationship between applicant No.3and respondent No.2 were strained. The FIR is nothing but theexaggeration and false implication of the applicants. It would be anabuse of the process of law if they are asked to face the trial. 4Per contra, the learned APP submits that there is strongprima-facie evidence against the applicants and now the matter is forframing charge. Let there be the trial. 5Taking into consideration the material in the charge-sheet,it is not even necessary to issue notice to respondent No.2. Before weproceed, we are only taking note of the fact that earlier the presentapplicants had approached this Court by filing Criminal ApplicationNo.1607 of 2019, which came to be withdrawn on 2nd February, 2022.If we peruse the order that was passed on that day, withdrawal wassought with liberty to the applicants to file application for dischargebefore the Trial Court. This Court while dismissing the application as 57 APPLN.2335.2025.odtwithdrawn, had given liberty to the applicants to file such an applicationfor discharge before the Trial Court. Now, it is not made clear as towhether such application was ever filed before the Trial Court andwhether that application has been decided. Now, almost after threeyears, the applicants are approaching this Court and we are surprise tonote that the sessions case appears to have not proceeded further.We need not go into the aspect as to who is responsible for the delay,but this is a point, which is required to be considered when we areconsidering the matter under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 6Taking into consideration the scope of the application, wefind that the contents of the FIR are supported by the statements ofwitnesses namely, Baburao Vitthalrao Harale, Gunaji Kailas Pole,Anitabai Baburao Harale and Vitthalrao Namaji Harale. 7The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicantshas relied on the discrepancies in the statement of witness Baburaoand the spot Panchanama. However, it is beyond the scope of theinquiry that is required to be made in the present matter by this Court.Of-course, there is the civil dispute that is pending, but reference of thesaid civil dispute is there in the FIR also. We are concerned with theincident that had allegedly taken place around 09:45 am on 5th March,2019. The charge is yet to be framed. The Sessions Judge before 67 APPLN.2335.2025.odtwhom the trial is pending, is certainly bound to follow the procedureunder Section 227 of Cr.P.C., wherein the present applicants would beheard and at that time, the applicants would be at liberty to point outwhether the offence under Section 307 of IPC has been made out ornot. Prima-facie, the FIR states that all the three applicants hadentered the house of the informant with preparation and therefore, theingredients of Section 452 of IPC are made out. Section 452 of IPC isa cognizable offence. If at all Section 307 of IPC is not made out i.e.any offence which is not triable by the Court of Sessions is made out,then as per Section 228 of Cr.P.C., the Sessions Judge may transferthe case to the Judicial Magistrate First Class or Chief JudicialMagistrate, as the case may be, and therefore, no case is made out forquashment of the FIR and the proceedings. 8The application stands rejected at the threshold. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]nga