High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad bench allowed Criminal Appeal seeking quashment of proceedings under Maharshtra Police Act. Ruling based on Section 468 CrPC bar due to non-filing of charge sheet after ten years.
Criminal proceedings pursuant to FIR No.153/2006 shall stand quashed.
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.
Cri.Appln.No.1435/2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1435 OF 2016
1)Sudarshan s/o Shivaji Dhande
Age: 35 Yrs., occu. Agril.
R/o Dande Galli, Beed,
Tq. And Dist. Beed.
2)Somnath s/o Vinayak Dhande
Age: 38 Yrs., occu. Agril.
R/o Ganesh Nagar, Beed,
Tq. And Dist. Beed.
3)Ravindra s/o Dhondiram Kadam,
Age: 34 Yrs., occu. Agril.
R/o Ganpati Ngar, Beed,
Tq. And Dist. Beed.
4)Vaibhav s/o Dnyanoba Jagdale,
Age: 34 Yrs., occu. Agril.
R/o Ganpati Nagar, Beed,
Tq. And Dist. Beed.
5)Vinod s/o Ramkrushna Ingole,
Age: 38 Yrs., occu. Agril.
R/o Vidhya Nagar, Beed,
Tq. And Dist. Beed. - APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1)The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station, Beed
(City), Dist. Beed.
2)The Police Sub Inspector,
Police Station, Beed (City),
Shri Balbhim Kekshavrao Nalwade
Age: 55 Yrs., occu. Service,
R/o Police Station, Beed (City)
Beed, Tq. And Dist. Beed. - RESPONDENTS
*****
Mr. Sudarshan J.Salunke, Advocate for Applicants;
Mr. SJ Salgare, APP for State.
Cri.Appln.No.1435/2016
2
CORAM: R.M.BORDE &
P.R.BORA,JJ.
DATE : 5 th May, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER:- R.M.BORDE,J.)
1)Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable
forthwith with consent of parties.
2)The applicants are praying for quashment of
criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance to
lodging of FIR No.153/2006 dated 29.5.2006 at Police
Station Beed City for the offence punishable under
Section 135 of The Maharashtra Police Act, 1951(for
short, the said Act).
3)The offence under Section 135 of the
Maharashtra Police Act is punishable with
imprisonment for a term, which may extend to one year
but shall not, except for the reason to be recorded
in writing, be less than four months and shall also
be liable to fine. Sub-section (ii) of Section 135
of the said Act provides that if the said order was
made under sub-section (2) of Section 37, punishment
shall be with imprisonment for a term, which may
3 Cri.Appln.No.1435/2016
extend to one month or with fine which may extend to
Rupees two thousand five hundred and if the said
order was made under sub-section (3) of Section 37,
punishment shall be with fine, which may extend to
Rupees two thousand five hundred.
4)In the instant matter, there is an
allegation in respect of breach of the directives of
District Magistrate in terms of Section 37(1)(3) of
the said Act and as such, there is infringement of
section 133 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
5)In view of the punishment prescribed for the
aforesaid Act, Section 468 of Code of Criminal
Procedure (for short, the Code) provides for
limitation for taking cognizance of certance
offences. It is provided under the Code that no
Court shall take cognizance of an offence of a
category specified in sub-section (2) after expiry of
period of limitation. Sub-section (2) of section 468
provides period of limitation for one year if the
offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term
not exceeding one year.
4 Cri.Appln.No.1435/2016
6)In the instant matter, although the FIR has
been lodged in the year 2006, till the date of
presentation of the Criminal Application in the year
2016, no charge sheet was presented. As such, it can
safely be concluded that for about ten years no
cognizance is taken by the Court in respect of the
commission of the alleged offence. The trial in
respect of the offence registered against the
applicants cannot proceed in view of the specific bar
contained under Section 468 of the Code.
7)In view of the above, the instant Criminal
Application deserves to be allowed and the same is
accordingly allowed. The criminal proceedings,
initiated against the applicants and other accused,
pursuant to registration of FIR No.153/2006 dated
29.5.2006, registered with Police Station Beed City,
for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the
Maharashtra Police Act, shall stand quashed.
8)Rule is made absolute in above terms.
sd/sd/(P.R.BORA) (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE JUDGE bdv/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Section 135 of Maharashtra Police Act can be quashed due to limitation bar under Section 468 CrPC.
Whether failure to file charge sheet within ten years bars taking cognizance under Section 468 of the Code.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sudarshan s/o Shivaji Dhande and Others
The State of Maharashtra and Others
R.M.Borde
P.R.Bora
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court