Partly allowed

Yogesh S/O Onkar Mistri and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Dec 2016APPLN/119/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court quashed the proceedings against applicants 4, 5, and 6 in an R.C.C., holding that the FIR contained no specific allegations or overt acts against them. The application was dismissed against applicants 1 to 3 as prima facie offences were disclosed.

What did the court decide?

The prosecution in R.C.C. No. 160/2014 against applicants 4, 5, and 6 was quashed and set aside.

Yogesh S/O Onkar Mistri and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

119.16appln

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 119 OF 2016

¶6

1. Yogesh S/o Onkar Mistri Age : 35 years, Occ : Private Service, R/o Shivaji Nagar, Dhule At present 1820, Via Petrrojo Apt. I, Thousand Oaks, CA 9130 USA.

¶7

2. Onkar S/o Bhivsen Mistri Age : 72 years, Occ : Nil, R/o Shivaji Nagar, Dhule, Dist. Dhule.

¶8

3. Sow. Vimalbai W/o Onkar Mistri Age : 67 years, Occ : Household, R/o As above.

¶9

4. Durga W/o Jitendra Sutar Age : 39 years, Occ : Household, R/o Hiranandji Estate, Thane Dist. Thane.

¶10

5. Sow. Sunita W/o Sunil Wagh Age : 37 years, Occ : Household, R/o Vimal Nagar, Pune.

¶11

6. Sandhya d/o Onkar Mistri Age : 30 years, Occ : Education, R/o Vimal Nagar, Pune.

¶12

APPLICANTS

¶13

-VERSUS-

¶14

1. The State of Maharashtra

¶15

119.16appln

¶16

¶17

2. The Police Inspector, Majalgaon Police Station, Dist. Beed.

¶18

3. Sou. Gitanjali w/o Yogesh Mistri Age : 27 years, Occ:Household (Service), R/o at present Swami Vivekanand Nagar, Majalgaon, Dist. Beed.

¶19

..RESPONDENTS

¶20

...

¶21

Advocate for applicants : Mr. C.R. Deshpande
APP for Respondent/State : Mr. P.G. Borade
Advocate for respondent no.3 :Mr. P.N.
Sonpethkar

¶22

...

¶23

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & K.K. SONAWANE, JJ. Dated: December 02, 2016

¶24

PER COURT :-

¶25

Heard the learned counsel appearing
for the applicants, the learned A.P.P.
appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and the
learned counsel appearing for Respondent
No.3.

¶26

2.The learned counsel appearing for
the applicants submits that even if the
allegations in the First Information Report
are taken at its face value and read in its
entirety, the ingredients of the alleged
offences have not been attracted and
therefore, the F.I.R. deserves to be quashed.

¶27

119.16appln

¶28

¶29

3.On the other land, the learned
A.P.P. appearing for the Respondent/State and
the learned counsel appearing for respondent
no.3 jointly submit that upon reading the
contents of the F.I.R. in its entirety, the
alleged offences have been disclosed. Those
needs investigation. Therefore, they submits
that this Court may not interfere in the
application.

¶30

4.We have given careful consideration
to the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel appearing for the applicants, the
learnedA.P.P.appearingforthe
Respondent/State and the learned counsel
appearing for respondent no.3. With their
able assistance, we have perused the contents
of the F.I.R.

¶31

5.So far as applicant nos. 1 to 3 are
concerned, prima facie, the alleged offences
have been disclosed against them in the
F.I.R., therefore, at this stage, we are not
inclined to entertain the application in
respect of applicant nos. 1 to 3 for quashing
F.I.R. So far as applicant nos. 4 to 6 are
concerned, the relevant portion from the

¶32

119.16appln

¶33

¶34

F.I.R. is as under:-

¶35

“ R;kuarj eh lklq lkl&;kauk fopkjys vlrk ojhy loZ izdkj lkafxryk ijarq lklq lkl&;kus lq?nk 30 yk[k : vko';drk vkgs rqyk ?ksoqu ;kosp ykxrhy vls lkafxrys- R;kosGh ekÖ;k uank nksu ua.kank rsFks vkY;k gksR;k eh rsFkqu R;kp fno'kh ektyxko ;sFks vkys o ?kMysyk izdkj ekÖ;k vkbZ oMhykauk lkaxhryk- ekÖ;k vkbZ oMhykauh Qksu o:u ekÖ;k irhph] lklq lkl&;kaph uankph letqr ?kky.;kpk iz;Ru dsyk ijarq R;kyk vi;'k vkys-”

¶36

6.Excepttheaforementioned
allegations,therearenospecific

¶37

allegations and overt acts are attributed qua applicant nos. 4 to 6. Therefore, keeping in view the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana V/s Bhajanlal¹ , we are of the considered view that further investigation/proceedings based on the F.I.R. as against applicant nos. 4 to 6 will be abuse of process of law and would be exercise in futility and wastage of time. In that view of the matter, so far as applicant no.4 – Durga w/o Jitendra Sutar, 1 AIR 1992 SC 604

¶38

119.16appln

¶39

¶40

applicant no.5 – Sow. Sunita /o Sunil Wagh
and applicant no.6 – Sandhya d/o Onkar Mistri
are concerned, the F.I.R. bearing Crime
No.61/2013 registered with Majalgaon Town
Police Station, Dist. Beed for the offence
punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504,
506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
consequent prosecution of applicant nos. 4 to
6 in R.C.C. No. 160/2014 pending before the
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Majalgaon,
Dist. Beed is quashed and set aside.

¶41

7.The application is partly allowed
and the same stands disposed of.

¶42

(K.K. SONAWANE, J.)

¶43

SGA

Yogesh S/O Onkar Mistri and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh S/O Onkar Mistri and Ors. 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

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Digambar S/O Pandharinath Mohite and Other Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

1 Imtajbi W/O Bhikan Pinjari and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Rajkumar Narayan Swami and Another

Ramesh S/O Arjunrao Aagale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Other

Shrikrushna @ Abhay Madhukarrao Kulkarni and Anr. Vs Superintendent of Police and Anr.

Sanjay S/O Vitthal Kedar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.