High Court
Legal Reasoning
6APPLN.2273.2020.odtBadnapur. The Panchanama of the spot of the incident is showingtwo spots of incident. No doubt, for proving attempt to commit murderpunishable under Section 307 of the IPC, it is not necessary that thereshall be physical injury to the victim of the crime. It is well settled thatthe intention to kill alongwith attempt, is sufficient. 10However, after reading the report and the statements ofwitnesses, it does not inspire confidence that such incident might havetaken place and applicant Nos.2 and 3 might have attempted tocommit murder by running over the Scorpio vehicle on the persons ofinformant and others, who quickly moved to the side of the road intothe mud to save their lives. If the entire charge-sheet is consideredtogether, we are of the view that if applicant Nos.2 and 3 are directedto face the trial, it would certainly be an abuse of the process of Court.We are therefore, inclined to allow the application to the extent ofapplicant Nos.2 and 3 by exercising our inherent powers under Section482 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, the following order:-O R D E RI.The application of applicant No.1 stands dismissed aswithdrawn.II.The Charge-Sheet No.58 of 2021, dated 6th April,2021, filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 7APPLN.2273.2020.odtFirst Class, Badnapur, District Jalna, arising out ofFIR bearing Crime No.266 of 2020, dated 2nd July,2020, registered with Badnapur Police Station, DistrictJalna, for the offences punishable under Sections 307and 353 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code,stands quashed and set aside to the extent ofapplicant Nos.2 and 3 (Satish Nanasaheb Ingale andParmeshwar Shivram Matade) only.III.The application stands disposed of. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]nga
Arguments
1APPLN.2273.2020.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2273 OF 20201.Sanjay s/o Omkar Ugale,Age 28 Years, Occu: Agriculture,2.Satish s/o Nanasaheb Ingale,Age 28 Years, Occu: Agriculture,Both R/o Kumbhari, Tq. Badnapur, District Jalna. 3.Parmeshwar s/o Shivram Matade,Age 40 Years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Dongargaon, Tq. Badnapur, District Jalna.… ApplicantsVersus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Police Inspector, Police Station Badnapur, Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna2.Dayanand s/o Bramhanand More,Age 33 Years, Occu: Service, Police Constable Badge No.851, Police Station Badnapur, T. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna.… Respondents(R-2 Org. Complainant) ...Mr. Kailas B. Jadhav, Advocate for Applicants.Smt. R. P. Gour, APP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2....CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE :17th March, 2025. 2APPLN.2273.2020.odtO R D E R: (Per Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.).Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 2This is an application under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) for quashing theCharge-Sheet No.58 of 2021, dated 6th April, 2021, filed in the Court oflearned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Badnapur, District Jalna,arising out of FIR bearing Crime No.266 of 2020, dated 2nd July, 2020,registered with Badnapur Police Station, District Jalna, for the offencespunishable under Sections 307 and 353 read with 34 of the IndianPenal Code.3 When this Court expressed disinclination to grant anyrelief to applicant No.1, the learned counsel for the applicants, oninstructions, seeks leave to withdraw the application of applicant No.1.Leave granted. 4It is averred in the report by informant DayanandBrahmanand More, Police Constable, that he is attached to BadnapurPolice Station, District Jalna. He is the writer of A.P.I. Bhagwat. On 2ndJuly, 2020 at about 03:00 pm, the informant was in the police station.API Bhagwat received information regarding the location ofabsconding accused namely Sanjay Omkar Ugle in Crime No.51 of 3APPLN.2273.2020.odt2020. Therefore, they both decided to proceed to search himalongwith Police Naik Rathod, Police Naik Dakhorkar, Home GuardTekale, Home Guard Kamkar and Home Guard Gite. They all went bythe government vehicle i.e. jeep towards Devpimpalgaon. Uponreaching Devpimpalgaon, they proceeded to village Kumbhari with thehelp of motorcycles from the local persons in that area towards thehouse of accused Sanjay. At around 04:15 pm, they saw a Scorpiovehicle bearing registration No. MH-04-FA-8143 is proceeding withhigh speed. They signaled the driver to stop and stood in the middle ofthe road. Accused Sanjay was sitting in the said vehicle. At that time,accused Sanjay loudly instructed the driver of the Scorpio vehicle torun the said car over the informant and his fellow officers. The driverthen increased the speed of it and tried to run over the car on themand proceeded towards village Kumbhari. The informant and othersquickly moved to the side of the road into the mud to save their lives.In the said Scorpio vehicle, accused Sanjay was sitting on the frontpassenger seat and applicant No.3 Satish was sitting in the back seat.The informant and others started to follow the said vehicle. However,due to the muddy road, their motorcycles could not be driven at aspeed sufficient to catch up with the Scorpio vehicle. Later, whiletraveling towards Jalna Road, the informant and others saw thatScorpio vehicle again. They told that fact to the driver of the policejeep on mobile phone that the Scorpio is coming from Kumbhari. They 4APPLN.2273.2020.odttold the driver of the police jeep to stop the said Scorpio vehicle, butthe Scorpio vehicle succeeded in proceeding further. However, asthere was no road ahead, they abandoned the Scorpio vehicle and ranaway towards the direction of the hills. The informant and other tried tofollow them. They managed to apprehend the driver (applicant No.3)who was limping. Upon inquiry, applicant No. 3 stated that whilerunning, he sustained an injury from a stone to his leg. When theyasked about the other absconding individuals, he could only identifyone of them as “Shubham Bhaiyya”. Regarding accused Sanjay andapplicant No.2, he stated that they left the Scorpio vehicle and fledfrom Kumbhari, instructing him to drive away at full speed. Therefore,he was driving the Scorpio vehicle at full speed. The informant andothers brought the Scorpio vehicle and applicant No.3 to the policestation and thereafter, the report was lodged. 5The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that falsereport is lodged against the applicants. They are falsely implicated inthe crime. The statements of witnesses are stereotype. No evidenceof individual witness is recorded, except the driver of the jeep namelyManoj Manikrao Kamble, who was engaged by the police station. Hesubmitted that if the applicants are directed to face the trial, in suchsituation, they will certainly suffer. He lastly prayed to allow theapplication. 5APPLN.2273.2020.odt6The learned APP for the State strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that the applicants are involved in theserious crime. Their names are mentioned in the report. ApplicantNo.3 acted upon the directions of accused Sanjay and drove theScorpio vehicle at full speed and tried to run over the said vehicle onthe informant and his fellow officers. Applicant No.2 was inside theScorpio vehicle and he did not object or try to stop the attack. Section307 of the IPC is invoked against them as they attempted to commitmurder of the informant and other officers by running Scorpio vehicleover them. She lastly prayed to reject the application. 7We have perused the report and the charge-sheet,particularly, the statements of witnesses.8The application of applicant No.1 is withdrawn. We areconsidering the application of applicant Nos.2 and 3. 9The statements of witnesses are mostly similar to that ofthe report lodged by the informant. The witnesses have stated in theirstatements about the incident took place there. All the witnesses arestaff members of the Police Station Badnapur. No independentwitness is examined, except Manoj Manikrao Kamble, who was thedriver of the jeep, whose jeep was engaged by the Police Station