Remanded

Zumbar Raghunath Gaikwad and Ors. v. the State of Mah Thr. Murum Police Station and Anr.

Bombay HC28 Mar 2012APPLN/770/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal application sought quashing of proceedings under IPC for offences 395, 447, 504, 506(II) read with 34. The High Court held that the lower court erred in not giving reasons for rejecting the Section 169 CrPC report, set aside the impugned orders, and directed a fresh speaking order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 24/11/2005 set aside; order dated 21/12/2010 issuing non-bailable warrant set aside; fresh speaking order directed under Section 169 CrPC.

Zumbar Raghunath Gaikwad and Ors. Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

770.2011 Cri.Appln.

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 770 OF 2011

¶5

Zumbar S/o Raghunath Gaikwad

¶6

& others VERSUS

¶7

APPLICANTS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & another

¶9

RESPONDENTS

¶10

Shri A.A. Mukhedkar, Advocate for applicants Shri S.N. Kendre, A.P.P. for respondent No. 1/ State

¶11

CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J.

¶12

DATED : 28th March, 2012.

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

Heard. Perused.

¶15

This is an application for quashing the criminal proceedings bearing R.C.C. No. 292/2004 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Omerga, District Osmanabad for offences under Sections 395, 447, 504, 506 (II) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as the order dated 24/11/2005 of issuing process against the applicants

¶16

¶17

770.2011 Cri.Appln.

¶18

despite the report filed by the police under Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “Code”) on the basis of the investigation done by them in respect of the said crime.

¶19

It is pointed out that the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Omerga, District Osmanabad, did not furnish reasons for rejecting the report of Investigation Officer under Section 169 of the Code, and consequently passing of impugned order of issuance of process for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 447, 504, 506 (II) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on 24/11/2005 is bad. No reply has been filed by the State or the respondent No. 2/ complainant.

¶20

The impugned order dated 24/11/2005 reveals that learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Omerga, District Osmanabad took into account the complaint and the report filed by the Investigation Officer under Section 169 of the Code. However, learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Omerga, District Osmanabad, has not given any reasons for diferring with the report filed by the Investigation Officer Under Section 169 of the Code. This would have clearly revealed the answers to the questions as to whether their existed sufficient grounds for issuance of process on the basis of sole testimony of the complainant.

¶21

¶22

770.2011 Cri.Appln.

¶23

Impugned order dated 24/11/2005 is, therefore set aside, learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Omerga, District Osmanabad is directed to pass fresh speaking order, particularly with reference to the report filed by the Investigation Officer under Section 169 of the Code in accordance with law. The order dated 21/12/2010 of issue non-bailable warrant is set aside. Criminal Application stands disposed off accordingly.

¶24

SDM* MARCH-2012

Zumbar Raghunath Gaikwad and Ors. v. the State of Mah Thr. Murum Police Station and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zumbar Raghunath Gaikwad and Ors. v. the State of Mah Thr. Murum Police Station 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

Vithal Gulabrao Maske Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Kamal Atul Pal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jagannath Ramrao Lande and Ors. Vs Sindhubai Jagannath Lande

Prakash Hamnantrao Sakhare Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ravindra Daynoba Salunke and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Vishnu Baburao Sarode Vs Vishnu Bhaulal Chumbalkar and Ors.