Single judge of the Bombay High Court rejected a criminal application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR regarding liquor smuggling, holding the case did not fall under Supreme Court guidelines in Bhajan Lal 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.
Cr.Appln/2098/2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2098 OF 2012
SATISH BHALCHANDRA WANI VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
Advocate for Applicant : Shri Shashibhushan P.Deshmukh h/f Shri M.S.Deshmukh APP for Respondents: Shri S.K.Tambe
... CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. Dated: February 22, 2013 ...
PER COURT :-
Cr.Appln/2098/2012
2
withdrawal of the application and further informed the learned counsel that no arguments would be entertained on merits on the adjourned date. Today, learned counsel for the applicant states that he has instructions to proceed with the matter and not to withdraw the application.
Cr.Appln/2098/2012
3
shown. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant, that name of the applicant is not prima facie mentioned in the first information report.
(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report
Cr.Appln/2098/2012
4
or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;
(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;
(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
Cr.Appln/2098/2012
5
(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
9. The application stands rejected.
akl
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal application filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR is maintainable based on the facts disclosed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶21
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Satish Bhalchandra Wani
The State of Maharashtra
S.B. Deshmukh
M.T. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
