Quashed

Dattanand Baban Kure and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Oct 2016APPLN/1456/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Aurangabad quashed FIR and criminal proceedings against six applicants (3-7) in assault/CMOP case due to delayed inclusion in complaint (4 months post-incident) indicating afterthought. Application against first two applicants was dismissed as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

FIR and proceedings against applicants 3 to 7 quashed and set aside; application allowed only for applicants 1 and 2.

Dattanand Baban Kure and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1456.16appln

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1456 OF 2016

¶5

1. Dattanand S/o Baban Kure Age : 24 years, Occ : Service, R/o Deshmukh Galli, Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani.

¶6

2. Mukteshwar S/o Baburao Kure Age : 40 years, Occ : Nil, R/o Shikshak Colony, Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani.

¶7

3. Mahadu S/o Hanuman Kure Age : 18 years, Occ : Nil, R/o Deshmukh Galli, Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani.

¶8

4. Hanuman S/o Baburao Kure Age : 41 years, Occ. R/o Deshmukh Galli, Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani.

¶9

5. Babanrao S/o Baburao Kure Age : 56 years, Occ : Social Worker, R/o Deshmukh Galli, Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani.

¶10

6. Radheshyam S/o Baban Kure Age : 18 years, Occ : Service, R/o Deshmukh Galli, Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani.

¶11

7. Mahadevi D/o Madhukar Deshmane Age : 37 years, Occ : Service, R/o Shikshak Colony, Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani.

¶12

..APPLICANTS

¶13

1456.16appln

¶14

¶15

-VERSUS-

¶16

1. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector, Police Station, Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani.

¶17

2. Kasturba D/o Trimbakappa Todkari Age : 41 years, Occ : Service, R/o Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani.

¶18

..RESPONDENTS

¶19

Mr.A.V.Patil(Indrale),advocate for applicants
Mr.A.R. Borulkar, APP for Respondent/State
Mr. V.B. Jogdand holding for T.M. Gavhane,
advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶20

...

¶21

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. Dated: October 18, 2016

¶22

ORAL ORDER :-

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing
for the applicants, the learned counsel
appearing for respondent no.2 and the learned
A.P.P. appearing for the respondent/State.

¶24

2.Perused the Report dated 7th
November, 2014 lodged by Respondent No.2 in
Police Station, Sonpeth immediately after the
incident, wherein she has named applicant
nos. 1 and 2 only as the persons, who are
alleged to have assaulted, insulted and
intimidated her. However, in the complaint
filed by her on 23rd March, 2015 before the

¶25

1456.16appln

¶26

¶27

Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sonpeth
after about four months of the incident, she
named applicant nos. 3 to 7 also as the
persons involved in the same incident. This
is ex facie an outcome of after thought. Had
applicant nos. 3 to 7 been involved in the
incident-in-question, in the natural course,
Respondent No.2 would have lodged the report
against them also at the earliest possible
opportunity and in any case, their names
would have been reflected in the F.I.R.
admittedly lodged by her on 7th November, 2015
in the Police Station, on the basis of which
the non-cognizable offence has been
registered.

¶28

3.In the above circumstances, we are
not inclined to accept the contention of the
learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2
that after some days, respondent no.2
mentioned the names of applicant nos. 3 to 7
also before the Superintendent of Police and
then in the complaint and therefore, they are
liable to be prosecuted.

¶29

4.At this stage, the learned counsel
appearingfortheapplicants,on
instructions, seeks permission to withdraw

¶30

1456.16appln

¶31

¶32

the application so far applicant nos. 1 and 2
are concerned. The application, therefore, is
liable to be dismissed as withdrawn so far
applicant nos. 1 and 2 are concerned.

¶33

5.So far as applicant nos. 3 to 7 are
concerned, in our opinion, the continuation
of further criminal proceedings against them
would be nothing but an abuse of process of
law. In the circumstances, we pass the
following order :-

¶34

ORDER

¶35

(i)The F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 49/2015
registered with Sonpeth Police Station,
Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani for the
offences punishable under Sections 323, 324,
326, 354, 504, 506, 353 r/w 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, so far as applicant nos. 3 to 7
are concerned, stands quashed and set aside.
(ii)The application stands dismissed, as
withdrawn, so far as applicant nos.1 and 2
are concerned.

¶36

(iii)The Criminal Application stands
disposed of in the above terms.

¶37

(SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.)(S.S. SHINDE, J.)
SGA

Dattanand Baban Kure and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dattanand Baban Kure and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Laxmibai W/O Shivdas Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sagar S/O Ashok Nagre and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Uttam Haribhau Gaikwad and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Avinash S/O Mahadeo Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaikh Hasnoddin Shaikh Kamaloddin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sunil Madhukar Nagare and Others