Allowed

Uttamrao Jalbaji Kalyankar v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC25 Jun 2013WP/24/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal writ petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Sections 354, 341, 323, and 34 of the IPC. The court held that evidence was unreliable, lacked corroboration, and continuing the trial would be an abuse of the process of law.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings bearing S.C.C. No.624 of 2012 pending in the J.M.F.C., Nanded were set aside to the extent of the petitioner.

Uttamrao Jalbaji Kalyankar Vs the State of Mah and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

Cri.WP.24.13

¶3

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 24 OF 2013

¶5

Uttamrao Jalbaji Kalyankar, Age – 55 yrs, Occu – Agril, R/o. Taroda (Kd), Near Hanuman Mandir, Taroda, Tal. & District – Nanded. ... PETITIONER

¶6

V E R S U S

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Police Station, Bhagyanagar, Tal. & Dist – Nanded.

¶8

Mangalabai Shankarrao Kadam, Age – 45 yrs, Occ: Nil, R/o. Mantri Nagar, Near Bhawsar Chowk, Nanded, Tal. & Dist – Nanded. ( For R – 1 Copy to be served upon Public Prosecutor, Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad. ) ... RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr. Ravindra B. Patil Narvade, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.B.Pulkundwar, APP for Respondent No.1 / State. Mr. B.G.Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.2. -----

¶10

¶11

Cri.WP.24.13

¶12

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J. DATE : 25th June, 2013.

¶13

JUDGMENT:

¶14

1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard

¶15

both the sides for final disposal.

¶16

2 This proceeding is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the

¶17

Constitution of India and also under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

¶18

Procedure for the relief of quashing of the proceeding of criminal case

¶19

bearing S.C.C. No.624 of 2012, which is pending in the Court of

¶20

J.M.F.C., Nanded. The case is filed in C.R. No.38 of 2012, which was

¶21

registered in Bhagyanagar, Police Station, Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 341, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The crime was registered on the basis of order made in private

¶22

complaint by J.M.F.C. under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal

¶23

Procedure. Respondent No.2 is the original complainant. Respondent

¶24

No.2 has made allegations against six persons against whom charge-

¶25

sheet is filed and there were allegations against some more persons

¶26

¶27

Cri.WP.24.13

¶28

that in the incident dated 15th March, 2012 at about 09:00 pm on

¶29

Bhausar - Mantri Nagar Road, force was used against her by all the

¶30

accused and other persons and they had forcibly taken her on one

¶31

motorcycle towards Gajanan Maharaj Temple. She has made allegations that near the Temple, all the accused and other persons cut her hair, they abused her and gave her threats of life. It is her case that

¶32

when the persons started gathering, the accused left the spot.

¶33

3 It is the case of Respondent No.2 that due to similar offence

¶34

committed against her by Accused No.1 – Balaji, a case was filed against him in the past and on 15th March, 2012, the accused were insisting that she should withdraw the case filed against Accused No.1. She has also made allegations that the accused are responsible for her separate residence from her sons. It is her case that in the past accused had promised her to maintain her throughout the life, but they did not act as per the promise.

¶35

4 The crime was registered on 4th April, 2012 after giving

¶36

¶37

Cri.WP.24.13

¶38

directions by J.M.F.C. under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal

¶39

Procedure. During the investigation, the police prepared spot Panchanama, but there was no sign of incident on the spot shown by

¶40

Respondent No.2. The statements of some witnesses came to be recored after registration of crime, but most of the witnesses came forward with version that they learnt about the incident from Respondent

¶41

No.2. Only one witness viz Shaikh Wajid gave statement before police that on 15th March, 2012, he witnessed some incident. The version of Shaikh Wajid shows that he knew only Accused No.1, but he was in the position to identify other accused. His statement does not show that in his presence, hair of Respondent No.2 was cut by the accused. He has given statement that on 16th March, 2013, he learnt about one more incident from Respondent No.2 and she informed that on 16th March, 2012 her hair was cut. The charge-sheet does not show that test identification parade was held to give opportunity to Shaikh Wajid to identify the other accused. The statement of Shaikh Wajid is not consistent with the version of the complainant and it shows that the

¶42

¶43

Cri.WP.24.13

¶44

accused were using force against Respondent No.2 to make her to

¶45

board one auto rickshaw. Such is not the case of the complainant.

¶46

5 The aforesaid material shows that one case was pending

¶47

only against Balaji, Accused No.1 and other accused had not motive for the offence. During trial, there will be the evidence of only Respondent No.2 of the aforesaid nature and if Shaikh Wajid is examined, there will

¶48

be inconsistent version on the record. There will not be any corroboration. Though the contention is made that the accused had given promise to Respondent No.2 to maintain her throughout the life,

¶49

she has not given reason as to why the accused should maintain her

¶50

throughout the life. All these circumstances have created probability that only to pressurize the accused, report was given. In view of these circumstances, it would be abuse of process of law if the proceeding is

¶51

allowed to continue as against Petitioner, who is Accused No.6 in the

¶52

case.

¶53

6 A copy of the judgment delivered in Criminal Application No.

¶54

¶55

Cri.WP.24.13

¶56

3969 of 2012 by this Court is produced on the record. In the said proceeding, relief of quashing of FIR in respect of Baliram Vishwanath Kalyankar was claimed and this Court granted the relief. He was named

¶57

as Accused No.4 in the FIR / complaint. The case of the present Petitioner is not at all different from the case against Baliram Vishwanath Kalyankar. In view of this circumstance also, this Court holds that the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶58

7 In the result, the petition is allowed. The proceeding of S.C.C. No.624 of 2012, presently pending in the Court of J.M.F.C.,

¶59

Nanded is hereby set aside to the extent of the Petitioner.

¶60

8 Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

¶61

[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ]

¶62

ndm

Uttamrao Jalbaji Kalyankar v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttamrao Jalbaji Kalyankar v. the State of Mah 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

Sitaram Khandu Patil and Others Vs Shankar Rajaram Patil/Bagal

Chandalmal Sumermal Surana Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

The State of Mah Thr. Kurunda P.S. Vs Kundlik Rajaram Mokale and Anr.

Rahul Balavantrao Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Govind Baliram Wani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Yadav Jivanaji Mulgir Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others