Dismissed

Bapurao S/O Marotrao Hake v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Nov 2016APPLN/4814/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application seeking to quash an FIR alleging offences against women, the High Court at Aurangabad rejected the plea. The court held that the FIR requires investigation despite vague allegations or the applicant's distance from the location, as it is not the court's stage to ascertain ingredients of offences.

What did the court decide?

None; the application for quashing the FIR stands rejected.

Bapurao S/O Marotrao Hake Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 Cri.A-4814-16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4814 OF 2016

¶4

Bapurao Marotrao Hake Age : 53 years, Occu. Service R/o : 102, Somthana Bhokar, Tq. Bhokar, Dist. Nanded Now Residing at Vijay Nagar Nanded.

¶5

...APPLICANT

¶6

versus

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra, through Police station Hingoli City Tq. Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli,

¶8

Alka Prem Maske Age : 32 years, Occu. Service, C/o Naik Nagar, Hingoli, Tq. Hingoli Dist. Hingoli. ...RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr. Ganesh Shinde, Advocate for applicant Mr. A. A. Jagatkar, APP for respondent – State Mr. R. A. Jaiswal h/f Mr. U. A. Bagdiya, Advocate for Respondent No. 2

¶10

.....

¶11

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

¶12

DATED : 23^rd NOVEMBER, 2016.

¶13

Order :-

¶14

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant invites our attention

¶16

to the allegations in the First Information Report (for short "FIR") and submits that the omnibus allegations are made against the applicant in the FIR and no specific date or incident is mentioned in the FIR. He

¶17

2 Cri.A-4814-16

¶18

further submits that if the allegations in the FIR are taken at its face value and read in its entirety, ingredients of the alleged offences are not disclosed. He further submits that applicant is residing at Nanded and respondent No. 2 is residing at Hingoli since 20-11-2008. The applicant had no occasion to visit Hingoli, as alleged in the FIR. He further submits that there is growing tendency of roping the distant relatives in the FIR though they are not related to the alleged offence. In support of aforesaid contention, the learned counsel appearing for applicant placed reliance on the following judgments,

¶19

[I] State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others¹

¶20

[II] Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. the State of U.P.²

¶21

[III] Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.³

¶22

[IV] Shakson Belthissor Vs. State of Kerala and another⁴

¶23

[V] Ramesh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu⁵

¶24

Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is working as public servant and by no stretch of imagination it cannot be said that he himself indulged in the alleged commission of offence.

¶25

On the other hand, learned APP appearing for respondent - State and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 relying upon allegations in the FIR, submit that allegations in the FIR will have to be read as they

¶26

AIR 1992 SC 604(1)

¶27

2 2012 STPL(LE) 46935 SC :(2012) 10 SC 741

¶28

3 AIR 2010 SC 3363

¶29

4 2010 AIR SCW 2494

¶30

5 2005 DGLS (Soft) 730 : 2005 AIR (SC) 1989

¶31

3 Cri.A-4814-16

¶32

are appearing and the same will have to be tested only during the course of trial. Therefore, they jointly submit that application deserves to be rejected.

¶33

Upon hearing learned counsel appearing for the applicant, learned APP appearing for respondent - State and learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, and also upon perusal of the allegations in FIR, we are of the opinion that allegations in the FIR need investigation. For the purpose of deciding present application following allegations from the FIR are relevant, which are as under:

¶34

“ rjh ai.k ekÖ;k lkljps ojhy ueqn yksd vkuan ekjksrjko eLds & Hkk;k jk cjM 'ksokGk] dey Hkz ckcqjko gkds & u.kan jk- fot;uxj ukansM] x.ks'k ckthjko eLds & pqyrlkljs jk- fot;uxj] lq/kkdj dSykl eLds & iqr.;k jk cjM 'ksokGk] ;ksxs'k dSykl eLds iqr.;k cjM 'ksokGk] ckiqjko ekjksrjko gkds uanbZ fot;uxj ukansM] Hkxokujko ckthjko eLds pqyr lkljk jk- cjM 'ksoGk ;kauh eyk ?kjh ukbZduxj fgaxksyh ;sFks ;soqu eyk rqb;k ukos vlysys uÅ ,dj 'ksrh izse ;kps ukos dj o R;kojhy vlysys iq.kZ fid dtZ QsM o R;kyk lksMqu ns vkEgkyk R;kps nqljs yXu djk;ps vkgs vkls Eg.kqu f'kohxkG d:u /keD;k n;kps o lkljP;k eaMGhps ,sdqu uojk izse gk IykWV ?ks.;klkVh ikp yk[k :i;s ns ulrk eh ek>s ftokps cjs okbZV d:u ?ksbZu o eqyhl i.k ek:u Vkdhy vls Eg.kqu usgeh eyk f'kohxkG o ekjgk.k d:u ftos ekj.;kP;k /keD;k nsr vlr rjh ai.k uoz&;kpk o lkl&;kP;k yksdkpk vkt ai;Zar =kl lgu dsyk =kl vlkg; >kY;keqGs eh iksfyl vf/k{kd dk;kZy; fagaxksyh efgyk n{krk lferh ;kaps dMs rdzkjh vtZ fnyk gksrk

¶35

4 Cri.A-4814-16

¶36

R;kr ek>k uojk ,sd.;kl r;kj ulY;kus rMtksM >kysyh ukgh Eg.kwu eyk ek>s lkljps ojhy ueqn yksd eyk pkaxys u ukanohrk ek>h 'kkfjjhd o ekufld NG d:u f'kohxkG o ekjgku dsY;kus ojhy yksdk fo:/n ek>h dk;nsf'kj rdzkj vkgs rjh R;kaps oj ;ksX; rh dk;Zokgh dj.ksl fouarh vkgs-“

¶37

Upon careful perusal of afore mentioned portion from the FIR, at the stage, when FIR is under investigation, it cannot be concluded on the allegations in the FIR that ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted or applicant's involvement is completely ruled out. It will depend upon investigation and material, which would be collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. It is true that no specific date is mentioned but that itself is not a ground for quashing the FIR. The allegations in any form in the F.I.R. would cause cruelty or harassment to the women and need to be investigated.

¶38

In the facts of the present case, we are of the view that, ingredients of the alleged offence are disclosed and the FIR needs investigation. Merely because the applicant is a public servant, that itself would not lead to the conclusion that his involvement is completely ruled out. The Supreme Court in the case of Taramani Parakh Vs. State of MP and others reported in 2015(2) Crimes

¶39

104 (SC) has distinguished the decision in the cases of Neelu Chopra and ano. vs. Bharti reported in (2009)10 SCC 184 and Geeta Mehrotra and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 .

¶40

5 Cri.A-4814-16

¶41

The Supreme Court in the case of Bhaskar Lal Sharma and another V/s Monica and others⁶ in para 11 of the judgment has held that the facts, as alleged, in the complaint will have to be proved which can be done only in the course of a regular trial. The appreciation, in a summary manner, of the averments made in a complaint petition or F.I.R. would not be permissible at the stage of quashing of F.I.R. and the facts stated will have to be accepted as they appear on the very face of it.

¶42

Therefore, for the reasons afore mentioned, we are not inclined to entertain the application for quashing FIR, hence, the application stands rejected.

¶43

We make it clear that, the rejection of this application may not be construed as an impediment for availing the remedy of filing the application for quashing the charge-sheet in the event of filing the same or for discharge as the case may be. The observations made herein before are prima facie in nature and confined to the adjudication of the present application only.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

[ K. K. SONAWANE, J.] [ S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶47

MTK

¶48

6 (2014) 3 SCC 383

Bapurao S/O Marotrao Hake v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bapurao S/O Marotrao Hake 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prasad S/O Nilkhant Ganu and Others Vs Fthe State of Maharashtra and Others

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sambhaji S/O Sudhakar Deshmukh and Ors.

Prabhakar Pandurang Kochure Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balasaheb S/O More and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ramakant S/O Nagnath Pise Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sangita W/O Avinash Shinde and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.