Single judge rejected the criminal application seeking to quash proceedings for offences under sections 394, 341, and 34 of the IPC, holding that the trial court should determine the inquiry based on evidence rather than mere allegations.
None. The criminal proceedings in R.C.C.No.2097/10 were rejected for quashing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
criapln1846-11.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1846/2011
Mr.V.B.Jagtap h/f Shri V.D.Sapkal,Adv.for applicants.
2 criapln1846-11.odt
Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil,A.P.P. for State. Respondent no.2 served.
CORAM : T.V.NALAWADE,J. DATE : 14TH JUNE 2012.
ORAL ORDER :
1] This proceeding is filed for quashing proceedings in R.C.C.No.2097/10 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C. Aurangabad. The case is filed for offence punishable u/s 394, 341 and 34 of I.P.C. It was submitted that the trial Court has already framed charge and no application was preferred for discharge.
2] Both sides are heard. Crime was registered on the basis of report given by one Santosh Jaiswal in respect of incident dated 13/4/10. in the report, he has made allegations that the present applicants, accused had obstructed his motor cycle. They had given beating to him and they had also taken away his mobile handset and in the incident by using force. This incident was witnessed by one Baburao Sangappa Ambulge. There are statements of some witnesses to show that immediately after the
criapln1846-11.odt
3
incident, the first informant had made disclosure about the incident to them. On the basis of this material, charge sheet is filed for aforesaid offences and the charge has been framed.
3] Advocate for the applicant submitted that original complainant is involved in sale of illegal liquor and as the applicants are opposing him, he has filed false reports against all the applicants. It was submitted that the present case is also an attempt of the complainant to pressurize the applicants.
4] The aforesaid defence and submissions made for the accused cannot be considered in the proceedings like present one. It is the job of the trial Court to consider substantive evidence, which would be given before it and to either believe or disbelieve the witnesses. On the basis of aforesaid averments and there is material already discussed, proceedings cannot be quashed. Nothing can be achieved by further considering the matter and so the application is rejected.
[T.V.NALAWADE,J.]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under sections 394, 341, and 34 of the IPC should be quashed on the ground of false allegation by the complainant?
Whether the trial court having already framed charges and lack of discharge application bars the quashing application?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chandrakant Manikrao Dahihande
Sakharam Asaram kale
Sharad Kailash Shukla
The State of Maharashtra
Santosh Jaiswal
T.V.Nalawade
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
