Dismissed

Ravindra S/O Vasant Wankhede and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Feb 2015APPLN/575/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Bench rejected a criminal application seeking quashing of an FIR and investigations, holding that a prima facie offence was disclosed and investigation was necessary due to the nature of the acts.

What did the court decide?

Rejected application for quashing of FIR and proceedings; no order passed on characters.

Ravindra S/O Vasant Wankhede and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2015) — LawSathi Research

¶1

(1) Cri. Appln. No. 575 of 2015

¶2

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

¶3

Criminal Application No. 575 of 2015

¶4

Ravindra s/o. Vasant Wankhede, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Private Job, R/o. c/o. Bipin Vasantrao Wankhede, "Jai-Yogeshwer" row house no.7, Police Quarter, Wasan Nagar, Pathergi, Nashik.

¶5

Kashinath Vasantrao Bidkar, Age : 44 years, Occupation : Private Job, R/o. Tarangan Galli, Beed. .. Applicants.

¶6

versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, Through, Jamkhed Police Station, District : Ahmednagar.

¶8

Shaikh Shireen Bano w/o. Shaikh Shakir, Age : 44 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Kharda Road, Jamkhed, District : Ahmednagar.

¶9

.. Respondents.

¶10

Mr. J.P. Pandav & Mr. R.P. Survase, Advocates, for the applicants.

¶11

Mrs. P.J. Bharad, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent no.1 - State.

¶12

(2) Cri. Appln. No. 575 of 2015

¶13

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &

¶14

A.M. BADAR, JJ.

¶15

DATE : 12TH FEBRUARY 2015

¶16

PER COURT :

¶17

Heard.

¶18

The learned Counsel appearing for the applicants, relying upon judgment of the Bench presided over by the learned Single Judge, in Criminal Application No. 4265 of 2011, dated 31st January 2013, on the ground of parity, seeks quashment of the FIR bearing No. I-215/2010, registered with Police Station, Jamkhed [District : Ahmednagar], under Sections 448, 504, 506, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, and proceedings arising out of the said FIR, bearing R.T.C. No. 390 of 2010, pending before Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Jamkhed.

¶19

We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the applicants. Perused the contents of the FIR.

¶20

Prima facie , offence under Section 448 of Indian Penal Code is clearly disclosed. Though the applicants are represented by a Finance Company, they have no business to commit house trespass and to enter into the house of the complainant in absence of other members of the family and sit there for hours together. The FIR needs investigation. No case is made out for quashing the FIR.

¶21

(3) Cri. Appln. No. 575 of 2015

¶22

The Application is accordingly rejected.

¶23

( A.M. BADAR ) ( S.S. SHINDE )

¶24

JUDGE JUDGE

¶25

puranik / CRIAPPLN575.15

Ravindra S/O Vasant Wankhede and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra S/O Vasant Wankhede and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra S/O Pelad Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Laxman S/O Kondiba Kamble

Ramesh S/O Chagan Vithore Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Durga S/O Timma Kurhade

Kishor S/O Kushandra Kamble Vs Dinkarrao S/O Shankarrao Jawale and Others

Dr.Nilesh S/O Vishwas Shelke and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another