Allowed

Yadavrao Lmukundrao Nemanniwar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Apr 2012APPLN/1141/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application seeking quashing of a case for theft, the High Court held that the prosecution case was weak due to conflicting witness testimonies. The Court exercised powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the futility of the trial and allowed the application to quash the pending criminal case.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Case No. 269 of 2010 stands quashed.

Yadavrao Lmukundrao Nemanniwar Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

( 1 ) cria1141.11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1141 OF 2011

¶4

Yadavrao s/o. Mukundrao Nemanniwar

¶5

..Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors...Respondents

¶8

Mr.S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for the applicant.
Mrs. Y.M. Kshirsagar, A.P.P. for respondent No.1/State.
Mr. B.A. Darak, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

¶9

CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE,J. DATED : 02.04.2012

¶10

P.C. :-

¶11

1. This application is filed for quashment of Criminal
Case pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Kinwat, vide
R.C.C. No. 269 of 2010. The applicant is the accused.
It is alleged that the applicant had committed offence
punishable under sections 380 read with 511 of the Indian
Penal Code, which means that the applicant attempted to
commit offence of theft.

¶12

The complainant is one of the officers of the Municipal Council of Kinwat and applicant/accused is coopt member of the Municipal Council. The incident had taken place in the office of Municipal Council on 09.11.2010. The complainant went to the police station with a complaint that on that day, he had handed over

¶13

certain files for inspection to the applicant/accused. He said that after receiving the files from him, the applicant put them in a plastic carry-bag and started running away. The complaint stated that he raised alarm and hearing his alarm the number of persons came to the spot. Seeing them, the applicant/accused dropped the plastic bag containing the files and vanished. 3. On the face of it the complaint looks quite serious and the police, it seems, promptly took action and registered the offence, but when the police started investigation, they came across at least three witnesses who described the incident differently. They stated that the complainant told them to bring the files from their cupboard for giving inspection to the applicant/accused. Accordingly, they brought the files. They added further that the applicant/accused and others then went to the Chamber of the President of the Municipal Council. They said that the applicant then started perusing the files sitting there. They then said that while this was going on, one Sajid Khan, who is elected Member of the Council came there and found that the applicant/accused was having inspection of important files in presence of the complainant, witnesses and others. Sajid Khan apparently got annoyed because of the 'favour' shown to the applicant/accused. He started abusing the complainant and the witnesses and demanded asking as to why they had

¶14

given inspection of the important file to the
applicant/accused and as to why they never showed similar
favour to him etc. They said that Sajid Khan made phone
call to Police station. They said that the police then
came there. Thereafter, they said that the complainant
lodged complaint. They specifically stated that the
applicant/accused had not committed any offence or
attempted no theft of the files.

¶15

Despite three statements of eye witnesses, the investigation officer took courage to file charge-sheet on 24.12.2010. Assuming that he still believed that the complaint is truthful and he should file charge-sheet, even the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case on 20.12.2010.

¶16

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant asserted
that the learned Magistrate did not utilize his
discretion given to him under section 190 of Cr.P.C. for
not taking cognizance. Learned Magistrate, in his order
did not mention as to why despite gross discrepancy in
the prosecution case, he would issue process against the
applicant/accused.

¶17

6. On the other hand the prosecution asserts that there
is prima facie case and whether the case is truthful is
matter of trial. Both the submissions are quite
plausible. But in my view the prosecution is so weak that
in all probability it would end up in acquittal. I am

¶18

assuming the prosecution would examine at least one of
the three witnesses who would prove the story of the
complainant false. There is no point in keeping the case
pending, for it would waste the courts valuable time.

¶19

In view of this, this application should succeed. I have sufficient material on record to exercise my powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal case.

¶20

8. The Criminal Application is allowed. Regular
Criminal Case No. 269 of 2010 stands quashed.

¶21

snk/2012/APR12/cria1141.11ok

Yadavrao Lmukundrao Nemanniwar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yadavrao Lmukundrao Nemanniwar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Lelson George Vs Union of India

J.D. Orgochem Limited Vs Dyes and Chemical Workers Union

Samir Nesar Ahmed Aftab Vs Saba Samir Aftab and Anr.

Sukhdeo Baburao Pawar Vs Babitabai Sukhdeo Pawar and Ors.

M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Marketing Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Mah

Abdul Rashid Siddiqui and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.