Allowed

Dipak Dagdu Pandit v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Oct 2016APPLN/2970/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court allowed an application for quashing of an FIR under Sections 498-A, 323, and 506 IPC. Holding the allegations general without specific dates or instances, the Court found no offence disclosed against the applicant and quashed the FIR.

What did the court decide?

The FIR in Crime No.125 of 2016 so far as the applicant is concerned is quashed, set aside and the Rule made absolute.

Dipak Dagdu Pandit Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 29-crappln2970.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2970 OF 2016

¶4

Dipak Dagdu Pandit,
Age : 41 years,
Occ. Service,
r/o. Pavansut Nagar,
Parbhani..Applicant

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra
and anr...Respondents

¶7

Mr.Ravindra J. Nirmal, Advocate for applicant

¶8

Mr.M.M.Nerlikar, APP for respondent no.1

¶9

Mr.B.S.Bhale, Advocate for respondent no.2

¶10

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : OCTOBER 03, 2016

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

Heard.

¶13

2.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶14

Heard finally by consent of the parties.

¶15

2 29-crappln2970.odt

¶16

3.This application is filed for quashing of
the F.I.R. in Crime No.125 of 2016 registered with
Manwath Police Station, Manwath, Dist. Parbhani
for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,
323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.

¶17

4.The learned Counsel for the applicant
submits that the applicant is a Teacher and is
residing and serving at Parbhani, which is 60 kms.
away from Sailu i.e. the matrimonial place of the
informant. He submits that there are no specific
dates or instances either in the F.I.R. or in the
statements of the witnesses, which would attribute
specific overt acts against the applicant. He
submits that even if the allegations made in the
F.I.R. are taken in their entirety, no offence is
disclosed against the present applicant. He,
therefore, submits that the application may be
allowed.

¶18

3 29-crappln2970.odt

¶19

5.On the other hand, the learned Counsel

¶20

appearing for respondent no.2, relying on the
averments in the affidavit-in-reply and the copy
of the N.C. registered against the applicant on
21.08.2016, submits that the allegations in the
F.I.R. will have to be read as they appear. The
learned A.P.P. appearing for respondent no.1,
relying on the investigation papers, submits that
the offences are disclosed against the applicant
and therefore, needs investigation.

¶21

6.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for

¶22

the applicant, the learned A.P.P. appearing for
respondent no.1 and the learned Counsel appearing
for respondent no.2. With their able assistance,
perused the averments in the application,
annexures thereto and the allegations made in the
F.I.R. So far as the present applicant, the
allegations in the F.I.R. are as under :-

¶23

4 29-crappln2970.odt

¶24

“ fnid nxMw iaMhr] uanbZ jk- jkenkl uxj ijHk.kh] vkJksck jk?kksth dkGs jk- lksUuk rk- lsyw ;kaps fo:/n fQ;kZn nsr vkgs rlsp usgeh eyk thos ekj.;kph /kedh nsr vkgs rjh eyk ojhy yksdkauh rq fnlk;yk cjkscj ukgh rqÖ;k oMhykauh yXukr oLrq fnY;k ukgh ?kj cka/kdkeklkBh ikp yk[k :i;s ?ksowu ;s ;k dkj.kko:u ekjgk.k d:u Vkspwu cksywu 'kkfjjhd o ekufld NG dsyk vkgs- ”

¶25

7.If the above referred allegations are perused
carefully, it appears that neither any specific
date nor any specific instance is mentioned. The
said allegations are general in nature. The
applicant is residing at Parbhani and serving as a
Teacher. Therefore, keeping in view the parameters
laid down in the case of State of Haryana and ors.
Vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, even
if the allegations made in the F.I.R. are taken at
their face value, no offence is disclosed against
the applicant. As already observed, no specific
instance or specific date is mentioned in the
F.I.R.

¶26

5 29-crappln2970.odt

¶27

8.Considering the overall material on

¶28

record, in our view, the application deserves to
be allowed.

¶29

9.The application is accordingly allowed.
The F.I.R. in Crime No.125 of 2016 registered with
Manwath Police Station, Manwath, Dist. Parbhani
for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,
323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, so far as the applicant is concerned, is
quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute
accordingly.

¶30

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.][S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶31

kbp

Dipak Dagdu Pandit v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipak Dagdu Pandit 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tanaji S/O Venkat Chendke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramji S/O Kondji Khandare and Other Vs the State of Maharashtra

Motilal S/O Bhaulal Chaudhary Vs the State of Maharashtra and Other

Nikita W/O Akhilesh Soni and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ramesh S/O Narayan Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sitabai W/O Narayan Dahe Vs the State of Maharashtra