Allowed

Rameshwar S/O Sampatrao Shingare v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Nov 2016APPLN/3491/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Application sought quashing of an F.I.R. against a government Maintenance Surveyor alleged to have committed offences while measuring disputed land. The High Court observed that the applicant acted in an official capacity, no offence was made out, and continuing investigation would be an abuse of process. The FIR was quashed against the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application allowed; F.I.R. registered vide Crime No.0118 of 2016 under Sections 143, 447, 427 IPC quashed and set aside as against the Applicant.

Rameshwar S/O Sampatrao Shingare Vs the State… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

cra3491.16

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3491 OF 2016

¶6

Rameshwar s/o Sampatrao Shingare,
Age-54 years, Occu:Service,
R/o-Plot No.35, Auditor Society,
Harsul T Point, Harsul, Aurangabad.

¶7

...APPLICANT

¶8

 VERSUS

¶9

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 At the instance of
 Jawaharnagar Police Station,
 Dist-Aurangabad,

¶10

2) Mr. Manju Parasi Jilla, Age-54 years, Occu:Doctor, R/o-Plot No.84, Motiwala Nagar, Jawaharnagar, Aurangabad.

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

...

¶13

 Mr.A.D. Ostwal Advocate h/f. Mr. K.D. Jadhav
 Advocate for Applicant.

¶14

 Mr.P.S. Patil, Additional Public Prosecutor
 for Respondent No.1.

¶15

 Mr.Kunal Kale Advocate h/f. Mr. R.S. Deshmukh
 Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶16

...

¶17

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND
 K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

¶18

 DATE : 17TH NOVEMBER, 2016

¶19

cra3491.16

¶20

¶21

ORDER :

¶22

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard finally by the consent of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties.

¶23

2.This Application is filed for quashing
the F.I.R. registered vide Crime No.0118 of 2016
under Section 143, 447, 427 of the Indian Penal
Code with Police Station Jawaharnagar, Aurangabad
dated 18th April 2016, so far as present Applicant
is concerned.

¶24

3.It is the case of the Applicant that he

¶25

is a Government servant i.e. Maintenance Surveyor
in the office of the Deputy Director of Land
Records, Aurangabad. The Court of learned Civil
Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad, appointed
T.I.L.R. Aurangabad as Court Commissioner and
directed measurement of the land in dispute which

¶26

was subject matter of Regular Civil Suit No.1076

¶27

cra3491.16

¶28

¶29

of 2014 (Om Sahkari Gruh Nirman Sanstha Ltd. vs.

¶30

Akruti Consultancy). Pursuant to said directions,
T.I.L.R. Aurangabad appointed the Applicant to

¶31

carry out the measurement of the said disputed
suit property. The Applicant, in adherence to
directions given by Taluka Inspector of Land
Records, went to the spot and carried out
measurement and submitted report on 18th April
2015. It is the case of the Applicant that he
discharged his duties in official capacity and he
has nothing to do with the alleged incident.

¶32

4.It is the further case of the Applicant

¶33

that from the date of measurement the Applicant
did not visit the place of incident and therefore

¶34

there is no question of further investigation
against the Applicant. It is the case of the
Applicant that without admitting but assuming that
the Applicant went to the spot of the incident,
in that case even if the allegations in the F.I.R.

¶35

as against the Applicant are read in its entirety,

¶36

cra3491.16

¶37

¶38

only allegation is that the Applicant did not
issue notice to the first informant before
carrying out the measurement. Therefore, according
to the Applicant, further continuation of
investigation on the basis of aforesaid F.I.R.
against the Applicant will be abuse of process of
law and therefore the F.I.R. be quashed as against
the Applicant.

¶39

5.On the other hand, it is the case of

¶40

Respondent No.2 that the allegations in the F.I.R.
attracts the ingredients of offences alleged and

¶41

therefore prayers in the Application may not be
entertained.

¶42

6.The learned A.P.P. appearing for the

¶43

State, on the basis of investigation papers,
fairly submits that even if the allegations in the
F.I.R. as against the Applicant are taken as they

¶44

appear, no ingredients of any offence as alleged,
have been attracted.

¶45

cra3491.16

¶46

¶47

7.We have carefully considered the

¶48

averments in the Application, the annexures

¶49

thereto and also the contents of the F.I.R. The

¶50

fact that Applicant is a Maintenance Surveyor in

¶51

the office of Deputy Director of Land Records, is
not in dispute. The fact that he was entrusted
with the job of measurement of the disputed
property, is also not in dispute. The fact that
measurement was already carried out before the

¶52

date of incident, is also not in dispute. We find
considerable force in the argument of the learned

¶53

counsel appearing for the Applicant that the
Applicant has no occasion to visit the place of
incident on the date of alleged incident and
secondly, even if the allegations in the F.I.R.
are taken as it is, merely because notices were
not issued to the Respondents, cannot constitute

¶54

any offence and also that the F.I.R. is lodged

¶55

belatedly i.e. after fifteen days of alleged
incident.

¶56

cra3491.16

¶57

¶58

8.Upon careful perusal of the F.I.R.,

¶59

allegations against the Applicant are as under:-

¶60

" rlsp eh vf/kd ekghrh ?ksryh vlrk eyk letys dh] rk- HkqehvfHkys[k dk;kZy;kps Jh f'kuxkjs ;kauh eyk o ek>s vktqcktwps yksdkauk dks.kR;kgh izdkjph uksVhl vFkok vkeph dks.kR;kgh izdkjph ijokuxh u ?ksrk ek>s ekydh IykWVph ekstuh csdk;ns'khji.ks dsyh vlwu R;kckcrph dkxni=kaph Nk;kafdr izrh o vkysY;k tekokps QksVks eh ;k lkscr lknj dfjr vkgs- "

¶61

9.Upon careful reading of the afore
mentioned allegations in the F.I.R. against the
Applicant, ingredients of the alleged offences are
not attracted and therefore, so far as present
Applicant is concerned, further investigation
based upon Crime No.0118 of 2016 registered with
Police Station Jawaharnagar, Aurangabad on 18th
April 2016, will be abuse of process of law and
exercise in futility, wastage of time.

¶62

10.In that view of the matter, and keeping

¶63

cra3491.16

¶64

¶65

in view the parameters laid down in the case of

¶66

State of Haryana V/s Bhajanlal, AIR 1992 SC 604,
this is a fit case wherein the F.I.R. deserves to
be quashed as against the Applicant. Hence,
following order:-

¶67

O R D E R

¶68

(I) Criminal Application is allowed.

¶69

(II) The F.I.R. registered vide C.R.
No.0118 of 2016 under Section 143, 447,

¶70

427 of the Indian Penal Code with Police

¶71

Station Jawaharnagar, Aurangabad on 18th
April 2016, as against the Applicant, is
quashed and set aside.

¶72

(III) Rule made absolute in above

¶73

terms.

¶74

asb/NOV16

Rameshwar S/O Sampatrao Shingare v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshwar S/O Sampatrao Shingare 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

Gopal Fakirchand Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jagannath S/O Narsing Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sheetal Dipak Kasar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vasant Motiram Bhil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Maroti Gangaram Wakde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kumar S/O Dattu Dhokale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others