The court rejected an application to quash the FIR. It noted the investigating officer's concern about the applicants absconding and being involved in similar offenses, and accepted the argument that they feared arrest if they appeared.
Application stands rejected:
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.
2520.16appln
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
_____________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders |
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2520 OF 2016
SANTOSH EKNATH BANSOD VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Advocate for applicant: Mr. A.K. Bhosale
APP for Respondent/State:Mr.A.A. Jagatkar
Advocate for respondent no.2: Mr.R.A. Jaiswal
holding for Mr.A.A. Pimpalwadkar
...
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE & K.K.SONAWANE, JJ. Dated: November 15, 2016
Heard the learned counsel appearing
fortheparties.Perusedthe
investigation papers and also the
affidavit filed by respondent no.2.
2.InvestigatingOfficerinhis
forwardinglettertothePublic
Prosecutor has stated that the applicants
are absconding and not making themselves
availableforinvestigation/
interrogation. It is also stated that the
2520.16appln
2
Investigating Officer wishes to carry out
further investigation as to whether the
applicants are involved in the similar
offences like the present offence.
3.The fact that the applicants are not
makingthemselvesavailablefor
investigation is fortified by the
arguments of the learned counsel
appearing for the applicants that the
applicants apprehend their arrest in case
they appear before the Investigating
Officer. In that view of the matter and
keeping in view the investigation papers
and allegations in the F.I.R., we do not
think that, this is a case for quashing
the F.I.R. on the basis of the affidavit
filed by respondent no.2.
4.For the reasons aforesaid, the
application stands rejected.
(K.K.SONAWANE, J) (S.S. SHINDE, J)
sga/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR should be quashed given the applicants' apprehension of arrest.
Whether investigation papers support quashing the FIR when applicants are absconding.
Santosh Eknath Bansod
The State of Maharashtra
S.S. Shinde
K.K. Sonawane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court