Private Service v. Business

cria-4027.23+1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4027 OF 2023Ganesh Vinayak Panchal,Age-34 years, Occu:Private Service,Residing at Nilanga, Taluka-Nilanga,District-Latur, At present- Spine Road,Shivtej Nagar, Pune. ...APPLICANT VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Police Inspector, Police Station, Nilanga, Taluka-Nilanga, District-Latur,2) Ashok Babuappa Kadadi, Age-53 years, Occu:Business, Residing at Adat Line, Nilanga, Taluka-Nilanga, District-Latur. ...RESPONDENTS ... Ms. Laxmi R. Thakur Advocate for Applicant. Mr. A.D. Wange, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr. S.B. Gastgar Advocate for Respondent No.2. … WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1058 OF 20211) Ashok S/o Babuappa Kadadi, Age-53 years, Occu:Business, R/o-Adat Line, Nilanga, Taluka-Nilanga, District-Latur, cria-4027.23+22) Pawan S/o Ashok Kadadi, Age-23 years, Occu:Pvt. Service, R/o-Adat Line, Nilanga, Taluka-Nilanga, District-Latur, Presently at Flat No.502, Mukteshwar Apartment, Near Adarsh Vidyalaya, Bhandup(E), Mumbai-400078,3) Sawan S/o Ashok Kadadi, Age-18 years, Occu:Education, R/o-Adat Line, Nilanga, Taluka-Nilanga, District-Latur.4) Mallama W/o Ashok Kadadi, Age-48 years, Occu:Household, R/o-Adat Line, Nilanga, Taluka-Nilanga, District-Latur.5) Prakash S/o Babuappa Kadadi, Age-37 years, Occu:Business, R/o-Adat Line, Nilanga, Taluka-Nilanga, District-Latur. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Police Station, Nilanga, Taluka-Nilanga, District-Latur,2) Jyoti W/o Vinayak Panchal, Age-55 years, Occu:Household, R/o-Saraswati Colony, Nilanga, Taluka-Nilanga, District-Latur. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. S.B. Gastgar Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. A.D. Wange, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. Ms. Laxmi R. Thakur Advocate for Respondent No.2. … cria-4027.23+3 CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 16th JULY, 2025 ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] :1.Both the cases are the cross cases and therefore, taken uptogether.2.Criminal Application No.4027 of 2023 has been filed by theapplicant, initially for quashing the First Information Report (forshort “the FIR”) vide Crime No. 58 of 2021 registered with PoliceStation, Nilanga, District-Latur and subsequently for quashingthe proceedings i.e. Charge-sheet No.103 of 2021, dated 18thOctober 2021, pending before the learned Judicial MagistrateFirst Class, Court No.2, Nilanga, District-Latur, for the offencepunishable under Sections 452, 327, 324, 323, 504, 506 readwith Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.3.Heard learned Advocate Ms. Laxmi Thakur for the applicantin Criminal Application No.4027 of 2023 and for respondent No.2in Criminal Writ Petition No.1058 of 2021, learned APP Mr.Wange for respondent No.1 in both the matters and learned cria-4027.23+4Advocate Mr. Gastgar for petitioners in Criminal Writ PetitionNo.1058 of 2021 and for respondent No.2 in Criminal ApplicationNo.4027 of 2023. In order to cut short, it can be stated that thelearned Advocates for respective parties have argued in supportof their contentions.4.The fact which is on record is that informant AshokKadadi’s daughter has lodged FIR with Solapur Police Station forvarious offences which are serious in nature, against one NageshPanchal, who appears to be the brother of the present applicant.Now, both these parties are coming with rival contentions.Informant Ashok Kadadi i.e. respondent No.2 in CriminalApplication No.4027 of 2023, has contended that when he was inhis house around 6.00 p.m., on 19th February 2021, along withhis wife Mallama and daughter Sushma, his door was knocked.He opened the door and then the present applicant along withother three co-accused entered his house and started asking asto why the informant’s daughter has filed R.C.C. No.604 of 2016and why she is not withdrawing the same though it was toldhundred times earlier. Nagesh, against whom that FIR withSolapur Police Station is lodged, was also there and he as well ashis mother asked, as to where the daughter of the informant cria-4027.23+5Ashok is, as they want to kill her. When they were tried toresisted by the informant, he was assaulted with scythe. Presentapplicant is stated to be standing outside the house andinstigated Nagesh and Jyoti to drag the informant and his familymembers out of the house and he was also giving threat to kill.When Jyoti had scuffle with the wife of informant Ashok, herMangalsutra was taken away by Jyoti. Thus, it can be seen that aspecific role has been attributed to the applicant in the FIR.There are witnesses in the form of wife of Ashok, daughter ofAshok and eye witness Santosh Wamanrao Jadhav and anothereye witness Sangameshwar Swami. There is injury certificate ofAshok, wherein he had received three injuries. Under suchcircumstance, we do not take this to be a fit case where thisCourt can exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure. 5.It was tried to be submitted that the ingredients of Section327 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code will not get attractedtaking into consideration the simple injuries. Here it is to benoted that the point can be raised by the applicant before thetrial Court who would frame the charge. The charge will have tobe framed according to the role attributed but when there is cria-4027.23+6certainly a role attributed, the proceedings cannot be quashedeven in partly by going deeper into the aspect, as to what is theexact role. Further it appears that the applicant wants to takethe plea of alibi. He appears to be a Deputy Manager, servingwith KSB Limited (Power Project Division) Factory, located atD-II Block, MIDC, Chinchwad, Pune and his attendance reporthas been produced on record. The plea of alibi will have to beproved by the applicant at the time of trial and since thedocuments on which the applicant is relying are the privatedocuments, the proof is necessary, which cannot be gone into bythis Court.6.Learned Advocate Ms. Laxmi Thakur relies on the decisionin Mohammad Wajid and another vs. State of U.P. and others,Criminal Appeal No.2340 of 2023 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal)No.10656 of 2022), decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 8thAugust 2023, wherein it has been observed that:-“Whenever an accused comes before the Court invokingeither the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction underArticle 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminalproceedings quashed essentially on the ground that suchproceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or institutedwith the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in suchcircumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with cria-4027.23+7care and a little more closely. We say so because once thecomplainant decides to proceed against the accused with anulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., thenhe would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well draftedwith all the necessary pleadings. The complainant wouldensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint aresuch that they disclose the necessary ingredients toconstitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be justenough for the Court to look into the averments made in theFIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whetherthe necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offenceare disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings,the Court owes a duty to look into many other attendingcircumstances emerging from the record of the case over andabove the averments and, if need be, with due care andcircumspection try to read in between the lines. The Courtwhile exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPCor Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself onlyto the stage of a case but is empowered to take into accountthe overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registrationof the case as well as the materials collected in the course ofinvestigation.” 7.The above observations are definitely binding on thisCourt, but here it is a cross case. The presence of other co-accused is admitted and therefore, when it comes to disputedquestions of facts regarding whether the presence of the accusedwas there or not, it will have to be left for the evidence to beadduced before the trial Court and therefore, we dismissCriminal Application No.4027 of 2023. cria-4027.23+88.Now, as regards Criminal Writ Petition No.1058 of 2021 isconcerned, the same has been filed by the petitioners, initiallyfor quashing the First Information Report (for short “the FIR”)vide Crime No. 56 of 2021 registered with Police Station,Nilanga, District-Latur, for the offence punishable under Sections354, 327, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506 of the Indian PenalCode and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, andsubsequently by way of amendment, for quashing the Charge-sheet i.e. proceedings in R.C.C. No.871 of 2021, pending beforethe learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, (Court No.2), Nilanga,District-Latur. As aforesaid, it is the cross complaint, but fromthe FIR itself it is required to be considered as to whether theoffences under which the FIR is registered are getting attractedor not. The informant respondent No.2 in this matter is JyotiVinayak Panchal and she has admitted that an offence wasregistered against her son Nagesh in June 2015. According toher, there was love affair between her son Nagesh and thedaughter of Ashok till April 2015 and it was not approved byAshok. She has not given the date of marriage of daughter ofAshok, but then as regards the incident dated 19th February2021 is concerned, the informant states that around 5.30 p.m.she went into the house of Ashok Kadadi and told Ashok’s wife cria-4027.23+9Mallama that since informant’s son Nagesh is getting service,Mallama should convince Ashok to withdraw the case againstNagesh. At that time, Ashok’s brother Prakash and Ashok’s sonsPawankumar and Sawan as well as Mallama started saying thatwhy she has come and if she wants that the case has to bewithdrawn, then for that the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- wasdemanded and then informant Jyoti states that she was abused.Ashok assaulted her on left thigh, Pawan caused injury withKatti on her right thigh, Sawan and Mallama also assaulted her.Then Ashok, by pulling her hair, caused her to lie on the groundand then her blouse was torn. Again Prakash had assaulted herwith stick. Her Mangalsutra was snatched and she was giventhreat. She is also giving name of same witness Santosh WamanJadhav as the person who had intervened and separated thequarrel. From reading of the FIR, it can be seen that in fact theinformant had gone to the house of Ashok. The presence ofAshok, his wife, two sons and brother would be natural andtherefore, it will not attract the ingredients of Sections 143, 147,148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The other Sections aregetting attracted. 9.Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners in this case cria-4027.23+10submitted that statement of Nagesh would show that he was notpresent at the spot, but then he states that said witness SantoshJadhav had called him and then he went to the Police Station.Thereafter he took his mother to Nilanga Police Station and thento Nilanga Government Hospital, who was then referred furtherto Civil Hospital, Latur. Statement of Shailesh Jadhav has beentaken, however, his presence has not been stated by theinformant. 10.Here, it is to be noted that the FIR is supported by injurycertificate and at the cost of repetition we would like to say thatit is stated to be the cross case where the presence of theaccused is admitted. Therefore, we may not go into the otheraspects which are disputed. Here also there is witness by nameSantosh Jadhav who has seen the incident. But then he hasstated that the incident had taken place in front of the house ofAshok, whereas informant says that she had gone inside thehouse of Ashok. These minute details are part of appreciation ofevidence, which can be considered by the trial Court. However,as aforesaid, when in the FIR it is stated that informant herselfhad gone inside the house of the accused, the presence ofaccused will not amount to unlawful assembly. Hence, to that cria-4027.23+11extent only, the proceedings deserves to be quashed and setaside. Hence, we proceed to pass following order:- O R D E R(I)Criminal Application No.4027 of 2023 standsrejected.(II)Criminal Writ Petition No.1058 of 2021stands partly allowed.(III) The proceedings in R.C.C. No.871 of 2021,pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate FirstClass, (Court No.2), Nilanga, District-Latur, arisingout of the First Information Report vide CrimeNo. 56 of 2021, registered with Police Station,Nilanga, District-Latur, stands quashed and setaside, to the extent of offence punishable underSections 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian PenalCode, as against petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 i.e. -1) Ashok S/o Babuappa Kadadi, 2) Pawan S/oAshok Kadadi, 3) Sawan S/o Ashok Kadadi,4) Mallama W/o Ashok Kadadi and 5) Prakash S/oBabuappa Kadadi. cria-4027.23+12(III)It is clarified that the matter to proceedunder the other Sections, i.e. Sections 354, 327,504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.[SANJAY A. DESHMUKH] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE asb/AUG25