Dismissed

Swapnil Sanjay Pawar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Apr 2012APPLN/1712/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR registered for caste-based abuse and assault. The court held that the six-month delay was insufficient to quash proceedings and the failure to obtain anticipatory bail did not justify quashing the case.

What did the court decide?

The application for quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings was dismissed.

Swapnil Sanjay Pawar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

CriApln 1712/12

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1712 OF 2012

¶6

1. Swapnil s/o Sanjay Pawar Applicants 2. Sudhir s/o Anna Kokate 3. Arun s/o Genu Dawane 4. Sahebrao s/o Vithoba Pawar

¶7

V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra Respondents

¶8

2. Pushanjali w/o Balkrishna Dalavi

¶9

 Shri Swapnil S. Patil, Advocate for the applicant
Shri N.H.Borade, APP for the respondent NO.1/State

¶10

CORAM : A.V.NIRGUDE, J.
DATE : 13th April, 2012

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

1.It is yet another attempt to throttle a
criminal case before investigation, trial etc.

¶13

2.The applicants are accused in Crime No. II-22
of 2012, registered on 2nd April, 2012 with Nagar Taluka
Police Station, Ahmednagar. The complainant is one
Pushanjali w/o Balkrishna Dalavi (respondent No.2), who
stated that on 2nd October, 2011, at about 11.00 a.m.,
the applicants abused her on her caste at public place
and in presence of hundreds of witnesses. She also
alleged that they assaulted her and threatened her etc.

¶14

2 CriApln 1712/12

¶15

In view of this, complaint for the offence punishable
under Sections 294, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C., under
Sections 3 (i)(x), 3 (i)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and
under Section 7 (1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights
Act, 1955, came to be registered. The offence is
registered recently and the investigation must be
pending.

¶16

3.The learned counsel for the applicants candidly
admitted that the applicants could not secure
anticipatory bail in this case. It seems, because of
this failure, the present application is moved for
quashing of the proceedings. The only objection that can
be raised against the complaint that it is made after
gross delay of six months. But, that in itself cannot be
the reason for holding that no case is made in the F.I.R.
against the applicants. There is ample material against
the applicants mentioned in the F.I.R., and therefore,
they cannot succeed in getting the F.I.R. set aside or
quashed. The application therefore stands dismissed.

¶17

 ( A.V.NIRGUDE, J. )

¶18

SRM/13/4/12

¶19

3 CriApln 1712/12

Swapnil Sanjay Pawar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swapnil Sanjay Pawar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Balu Gopinath Tandale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prakash Bhagwat @ Bhaskar Borhade Vs the State of Mahrashtra

Gulab Pandurang Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tasneem Fatema Shaikh Abdul Karim and Anr. Vs Siddiqui Abdul Faheem Abdul Aleem

The State of Maharashtra Vs Venkatrao Raghunathrao Chavan

Sangram Hanmantappa Chakure Vs Mahadevi Shankarappa Belure and Anr.