Partly allowed

Raosaheb Madhav Avahad and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Sept 2010APPLN/2696/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal application concerned a request for anticipatory bail and quashing of an FIR. The court noted the FIR was partly based on alleged atrocity offenses but found the dispute stemmed from property disagreements. Consequently, the quashing prayer was dismissed while the ad-interim anticipatory bail was confirmed pending the filing of the charge sheet.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR dismissed as applicants withdrew the prayer. Ad-interim anticipatory bail confirmed till filing of charge sheet.

Raosaheb Madhav Avahad and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2696 OF 2010

¶4

1.	Raosaheb S/o Madhav Avahad Age : 36 years, Occ : Service in MSEB, R/o at 33 KVK Manwat, Tq.Manwat, District Parbhani.
2.	Subhash S/o Shankarrao Navghare Age : 47 years, Occ : Agril., R/o Limba, Tq.Pathri, Dist.Parbhani.
3.	Rajebhau S/o Subhash Navghare Age : 24 years, Occ : Education at Ambejogai, R/o Limba, Tq.Pathri, Dist.Parbhani.
4.	Sakharam S/o Manik Avahad Age : 22 years, Occ : Education, R/o Babhalgaon, Tq.Pathri, Dist.Parbhani.
5.	Nanasaheb S/o Kishan Kamble Age : 40 years, Occ : Labourer, R/o Sarola, Tq. Pathri, Dist.Parbhani. ..APPLICANTS -VERSUS-
The and	State of Maharashtra another. ..RESPONDENTS
Mr. Mr. Mr. resp	......... M.P. Kale, advocate for the applicants. B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 B.S. Shinde holding for Mr.R.S. Kasture, advocate for the ondent no.2. ........
PER	(CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 2nd September, 2010. COURT :

¶5

This is an application for anticipatory bail and

¶6

¶7

quashing F.I.R. lodged under the provisions of Section 3(1)(11) of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act along with offences under Sections 147, 148, 427, 341, 323, 506 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶8

The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with crime no.112/2010 registered at Pathri police station on basis of report lodged by complainant Kamalbai w/o Ramesh Bhagure.

¶9

At the outset the learned Advocate for the applicants does not want to press the application for quashing of F.I.R., and therefore, the application is dismissed to the extent of prayer for quashing of F.I.R.

¶10

It appears that ad-interim anticipatory bail was granted by this Court (Coram A.V. Potdar `J’) by order dated 20^th July, 2010 and is continued till today.

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and the learned A.P.P. and on perusal of the investigation papers, it is amply clear that the real dispute between complainant Smt.Kamalbai and the applicant no.1 is in respect of open plot, on which she attempted to raise temporary shed of hotel. It appears

¶12

¶13

that complainant-Kamalbai used to run the roadside hotel on open plot which is infront of plot purchased by the applicant no.1 from one Ramkishan Dharme. It appears that the hotel was run under a temporary shed and the plot beneath is part of the public property being under control of P.W.D. The investigation papers purport to show that before purchase of the plot from Ramkishan Dharme, the meeting was held and complainant Smt.Kamalbai had agreed to vacate the said plot as and when the applicant no.1 would start the construction over the plot no.1 purchased by him from said Ramkishan Dharme. It appears that in the meanwhile, the temporary shed of the hotel of complainant Smt.Kamalbai was removed or had been destroyed due to natural calamity. Thereafter, she tried to re-erect shed and applicant no.1 objected such work on the ground that he wanted to construct the plot purchased by him. That is the main reason which gave rise to the dispute.

¶14

It prima facie appears that complainant-Kamalbai

¶15

sustained three simple contusion injuries during the course of alleged incident. There is no medial certificate to indicate that her husband was also injured as alleged in the F.I.R. Since the injuries are of simple nature, the offence alleged may come within the ambit of Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, which is bailable

¶16

¶17

one.

¶18

Considering the background facts, it is prima facie clear that the incident was not outcome of the assault or insult caused to the complainant on ground of her being member of schedule caste. That was due to the property dispute. In this view of the matter, the ad-interim relief by way of the anticipatory bail is confirmed. The order regarding the anticipatory bail will come to an end on filing of charge sheet. The application disposed of. The observations in this order shall not be considered in any other proceedings which may be independently decided on merits.

¶19

( V.R.KINGAONKAR)

¶20

JUDGE

¶21

gas/cri2696.10

Raosaheb Madhav Avahad and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raosaheb Madhav Avahad and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Premchand Bansilal Kucheria Vs Shivdas Sonajikokane and Anr.

State of Mah Vs Ravindra Anant Suryawanshi and Anr.

Sunil Vishnu Kale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajkumar Hiralal Dhotre Vs Dattatraya Murlidhar Vaidhya and Anr.

Anil Nivruti Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

The State of Mah Vs Ambadas Ruprao Tayade