The High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 420, 323, and 506 of the IPC. The court found the document executed under alleged duress was forged and the prosecution ill-motivated, with no prima facie evidence of latent criminality against the applicant.
FIR vide Crime No.57/2013 is quashed and set aside.
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.
CR.APL.NO.1782/2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1782 of 2013
Rajendrakumar s/o Shivprasad Mundada,
Age 42 years, Occ. Business,
r/o New Adarsh Colony, Purna,
Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani.
...APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Investigation Officer, Police Station Purna, Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani.
2. Neminath s/o Sureshrao Kurhe, Age 32 years, Occ. Business, r/o Khujada, Tq. Purna, dist.Parbhani.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. J.M.Murkute, Adv., for the applicant.
Mr. B.V.Wagh, APP for respondent State.
Mr. S.N.Lale Yelwatkar, Adv., h/f Mr. A.N.Irpatgire
forrespondentno.2.
...
CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL AND A.I.S.CHEEMA,JJ.
Date:SEPTEMBER 25th, 2013
...
P.C.:-
1. Heard extensively.
2.Mr Irpatgire for respondent / original
complainant again called, absent. His colleague
seeks accommodation. We are not inclined to do so.
2 CR.APL.NO.1782/2013
3.FIR vide Crime No.57/2013, registered at
Police Station, Purna, dated 18th March, 2013, for
offense under Sections 420, 323, 506 of IPC, is
questioned.
4.Available record illustrate that the
applicant was allottee of a shop at Agricultural
Produce Market Committee. He had developed
controversies with authorities and, consequently, to
have different colour to the issue, respondent no.2
was projected to be a tenant in the said shop,
however, in an inquiry caused by the appellate
authority at Pune, it was revealed respondent no.2 was
a stooge and had no semblance of such rights.
5.The stand raised by respondent no.2 was,
under duress, a stamp vendor was called at the
residence of the applicant and on 28.10.2012, a forged
document was executed. However, Police made inquiries
with the stamp vendor and by producing his record, he
has primarily indicated that such stamp was purchased
by respondent no.2 on 25.10.2012. This has been
confirmed even from other statements. Police even
found, prosecution by respondent was ill-motivated
There cannot be prima facie any latent act of
criminality, deception on the part of the applicant.
No case for man-handling or abusing is made out.
Prosecution vide Crime No.57/2013, is quashed and
set aside.
agp/1782-13crapl
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the prosecution under Sections 420, 323, 506 of IPC against the applicant should be quashed considering the forged nature of the document and ill-motivation of the respondent.
Rajendrakumar s/o Shivprasad Mundada
The State of Maharashtra
Neminath s/o Sureshrao Kurhe
K.U.CHANDIWAL
A.I.S.CHEEMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court