Mr. Avinash M. Reddy, Advocate for the v. Patil

Legal Reasoning

1 of 9 40-Cr.WP.1437.2024.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD40 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1437 OF 2024Sangita w/o Ramesh Sagar,Age-55 Years Occ- House wifeR/at. Gurumauli Nivas,House no. R/1308/1, CTS no. 4407,Mitra Nagar, Main Road, Latur.… PetitionerVersus1. Usha Tanaji Piske,Age: 55 years, Occ: Housewife2. Santosh Tanaji Piske,Age: 37 years, Occ: Service,3. Swati Tanaji Piske,Age: 30 years, Occ: Housewife,Res nos.1 ot 3 residing at,Swapnapurti Niwas,Near Water Tank,Behind Royal Pan Shop,Gajanan Marg, Barshi Road,Latur, Ta. And Dist. Latur.4. Madhukar Bansilal Gangne,Age: 41 years, Occ: Service,R/at. Gayatri Nagar, Latur,Tq. and dist. Latur.… Respondents(Orig. Accused Nos.1 to 4)5. The State of Maharashtra,At the Instance ofShivaji Nagar Police Station. … Respondents…Mr. Avinash M. Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner.Mr. Hanmant V. Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.Mr. G. O. Wattamwar, APP for Respondent No.5-State.…CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.RESERVED ON : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2025 2 of 9 40-Cr.WP.1437.2024.odtJUDGMENT:-1.Heard Mr. Avinash M. Reddy, learned Advocate for thePetitioner; Mr. Hanmant V. Patil, learned Advocate for RespondentNos.1 to 4; and Mr. G. O. Wattamwar, Learned APP for RespondentNo.5-State. 2.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of theAdvocate for the parties being disposed of finally.3.The Petitioner is praying for quashing and setting aside theimpugned order dated 1st June 2024 passed in Revision Petition No. 54of 2023 by learned Additional Session Judge-3 at Latur, wherein orderdated 7th July 2023 passed below Exh. 36 by learned Chief JudicialMagistrate Court at Latur in R.C.C. No.379 of 2023 dischargingRespondents Nos.1 to 4 came to be maintained. 4.Initially based on report of the Petitioner and the chargesheettherein total five Accused were being prosecuted for the offencespunishable under Sections 143, 147, 294, 323, 504, 506 read withSection 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, vide impugnedorder dated 7th July 2023 passed by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,Latur charge came to be framed against only Accused No.1 and underSection 239 of Cr.P.C. Accused No.2 to 5 i.e. Respondent Nos.1 to 4herein came to be discharged. 3 of 9 40-Cr.WP.1437.2024.odt5.The Petitioner i.e. Informant has filed Crime No.91 of2025. In the said FIR, she alleged that she had rented her ground floorpremises to one-Tanaji Pandharinath Piske for the period of 11 months.However, even after expiry of the said period, Tanaji did not vacate thepremises, which gave rise to a civil dispute pending between them. On17th May 2015 at about 8:42 to 9:00 a.m., the Informant-Petitioner hadgone to ground floor to switch on the panel board button of theborewell. At that time, it is alleged that the said tenant-Tanaji Piskeabused her with abusive words and also assaulted her by fist and kickblows on legs and back. It is also alleged that, thereafter, the saidTanaji made phone call to his wife, daughter-Swati, son-Santosh, hisfriend-Madhukar (all Respondent Nos.1 to 4) and one unknownwoman. All these persons have also abused her in filthy language andthreatened to kill her. Therefore, the crime came to be registeredagainst said five persons and one unknown woman for the offencespunishable under Sections 143, 147, 294, 323, 504, 506 read withSection 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the chargesheetcame to be filed against five Accused persons. The present RespondentNos.1 to 4 are arrayed as Accused Nos.2 to 5 therein. 6.According to Mr. Reddy, learned Advocate for the Petitioner,learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur while passing theimpugned order dated 7th July 2023, has not considered material onrecord. It was contended that in respect of First Information Report 4 of 9 40-Cr.WP.1437.2024.odtNo.91 of 2015, the chargesheet was filed against Respondent Nos.1 to4. On perusal of the chargesheet, according to him, it appears thatsufficient material was collected by the police, thereby pointing outdirect role of Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the commission of theaforesaid offence. 7.He further contended that the material submitted in the finalreport is attributing specific role of Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the crime.According to him, in view of sufficient material available againstRespondent Nos.1 to 4, learned Lower Courts below ought not to havedischarged them. According to him, learned Lower Courts below erredin deciding about the presence of the Accused person on the spot ornot. He contended that such exercise was to be carried out by leadingevidence to that effect and not at the time while deciding the dischargeapplication. He again further pointed out that there is sufficientmaterial against Respondent Nos.1 to 4 available in the chargesheet assuch learned Lower Courts below ought not to have discharged them. 8.On the contrary, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to4 took this Court through the statements of witnesses as well as orderspassed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur. According to him,the incident is dated 17th May 2015. However, FIR is registered on 19thMay 2015. In the FIR, the role of Accused Nos.2 to 5 is appearing to bevague and general. According to him, though the incident is dated 17th 5 of 9 40-Cr.WP.1437.2024.odtMay 2015 and one certificate annexed in the charge-sheet disclosesnature of injuries of conclusion on the right thigh. The saidexamination was conducted on 17th May 2015. However, anotherDischarge Card of MLC/3209/SLS/15 discloses the Petitioner-Informant was admitted to Government Hospital on 27th May 2015 andthere were certain multiple contusions and abrasions. The policerecorded her statement on 24th May 2015 in the hospital and but thecrime was registered on 27th May 2015. The MLC number indicatingon the injury certificate indicates that the Petitioner-Informant wasadmitted on 22nd May 2015 in the Government Hospital anddischarged on 27th May 2015. The Crime No.91 of 2015 came to beregistered on the basis of statement recorded on 24th May 2015, butsame has been registered on 27th May 2015 for the offences punishableunder Sections 143, 147, 294, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 ofIPC. The allegations which are made against Accused No.1 in FIRdated 17th May 2015 are similar allegations made against Accused No.1in the report dated 27th May 2015. However, the allegations which aremade against Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the earlier report are notsimilar as made in the later FIR. The statements witnesses, namely,Ramesh Sagar, Nagesh Sagar, Jyoti Nikam and Ashok Kamble arerecorded by police on 28th May 2015. 9.Mr. Hanmant Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1to 4 would submit that there is prima-facie case against Accused No.1- 6 of 9 40-Cr.WP.1437.2024.odtTanaji. However, there is no material available on record againstpresent Respondents. The allegations appearing against them arevague and obnoxious in nature. No specific role is attributed againstany of Accused Nos.2 to 5. Deliberate presence of all the familymembers at the time of commission of crime is, therefore, not reliableand probable to presume their guilt. However, in second FIR dated22nd May 2015, the role of Respondent No.1 is deliberately stated andin exaggerated form, the story has been put up against them. Hefurther contended that there is concurrent finding of both the Courtsbelow and as such, in such contingency, it would not be appropriate tointerfere with the said concurrent findings. As such, he prayed formaintaining the orders passed by learned Lower Court below.10.It is clear from the record that the Petitioner had earlier fileda complaint with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Latur and also to theSuperintendent of Police, Latur. The S.P. of Latur directed police toinquire into the complaint. The police therefore recorded the statementof Petitioner on 20.05.2015. The police closed the complaint therebygiving notice under Section 149 of Cr.P.C. to both sides. Howeverthereafter Petitioner got admitted to Government Hospital, Latur on22.05.2015 and police recorded her statement/complaint on24.05.2015 and police registered the Crime No.91 of 2015 on27.05.2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 294,323 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 7 of 9 40-Cr.WP.1437.2024.odt11.In pursuance to the aforesaid submissions, it is to be statedhere that the initial crime discloses that the Accused-Tanaji hadquarreled with Petitioner and he assaulted her. However, in secondincident, it is stated that the Accused-Tanaji phone called his relativei.e. present Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and asked them to come to the spot.According to the Petitioner, after Respondent Nos.1 to 4 also reachedand they have also abused her in filthy language. They also threatenedto kill her. The Informant as well as her statements coupled with thestatements of other witnesses disclosed that the allegations are specificagainst the particular Accused No.1. There are general allegationsagainst all the other Accused. The submission of learned Advocate forRespondent Nos.1 to 4 that when Respondent Nos.1 to 4 reached to thespot, there was no meeting of mind between Respondent Nos.1 to 4and Accused No.1-Tanaji assumes significance. As such, they cannot beheld to be the members of unlawful assembly. As there are generalallegations of Informant and witnesses, Accused Nos.2 to 5 i.e.Respondent Nos.1 to 4 cannot be said to be the members of unlawfulassembly and they also cannot be said to have participated in thecrime. 12.The learned Lower Courts below, after considering thesubmissions of learned Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 4, havepassed detailed order after appreciating the material before it. No faultcan be found either on facts or on law in the said judgments. The 8 of 9 40-Cr.WP.1437.2024.odtlearned session judge while passing judgment in revision petition waspleased to consider that Respondents Nos.1 to 4 were not present whenthe incident of assault and abusing took place. Even after their arrivalon spot, they in chorus alleged to have abused Petitioner, and there areno specific allegation against the particular Accused. Thus, both theCourts have considered the material in police report available againstthe Accused persons and accordingly passed their respectivejudgments.13.The law regarding exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227of the Constitution of India is very much clear that High Court in theguise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot convert itselfinto the Court of appeal. The power of Superintendence confirmed byArticle 227 is to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriatecases in order to keep sub-ordinate Courts within the bounds of theirauthority and not for correcting mere errors. Even under Section 482 ofCr.P.C., this Court would be entitled to interfere and when there isabuse of process of law and particularly when frivolous or maliciousproceedings are initiated. In this case, the proceedings againstRespondent Nos.1 to 4 is prima-facie found to be unwarranted.Therefore, as the impugned orders passed by learned Lower Courtbelow does not discloses any procedural errors, perversity or violationor breach of any law, and as both the learned Courts below have passedthe orders after going through the material before them, the instant 9 of 9 40-Cr.WP.1437.2024.odtpetition therefore fails and needs to be rejected. 14.The view taken by learned Lower Court below on the basisof police final report is correct and proper. In view of this, no case forinterference is made out and, therefore, this Court proposes to passfollowing order. 15.Hence, the instant petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.No order as to cost. (SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)Tauseef