Petitioners sought quashing of FIRs under Article 226 alleging no offence was made out and they were absent during the incident. The bench held the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and presence would be decided during evidence.
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.
909-wp-2367-2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2367 OF 2008
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2368 OF 2008
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2369 OF 2008
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2370 OF 2008
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2371 OF 2008
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2372 OF 2008
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2373 OF 2008
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2374 OF 2008`
Ranjeet Nanaso Bhosale and Ors.
vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Mr.Kuldeep Patil, Advocate for the petitioners
Ms.P.H.Kantharia, APP for the State.
CORAM : V.M. KANADE &
P.D. KODE JJ.
1/3
Vishal
909-wp-2367-2008
P.C.:
.By this petition, which is filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
Petitioners are seeking appropriate writ order
and direction for quashing of FIR which has
been registered with Satara City police
station, Satara for the offence punishable
under Sections 337, 153(A), 109 of the Indian
Penal Code and under section 3 of the Public
Properties Act.
2.It is alleged that the accused and the
others pelted stones on the bus and damaged
the public property. It is mentioned in the
application that the petitioners were not
present in Satara district at the relevant
time. Secondly, it is alleged that no offence
is made out against the petitioners.
We have perused the FIR. In our view, the averments made in the FIR clearly disclosesthe commission of a cognizable offence. The
2/3
Vishal
909-wp-2367-2008
question as to whether the petitioner was
present there or not, can be decided after the
evidence is recorded by the prosecution and or
by the petitioners.
4.Hence, we are not inclined to quash the
FIR. Writ Petitions therefore, are dismissed.
5.Interim orders, if any, are vacated.
3/3
Vishal
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the averments in the FIR disclose a cognizable offence warranting quashing despite allegations that petitioners were not present at the relevant time.
Whether to quash FIRs under Section 337, 153(A), 109 IPC and Section 3 Public Properties Act registered under Article 226.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Ranjeet Nanaso Bhosale and Ors.
The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
V.M. Kanade
P.D. Kode
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court