Petitioner applied to quash the FIR alleging rape, citing expired complainant and suppressed alibi evidence. Court dismissed the plea, holding that material existence of involvement precludes quashing and suppressed material issues are for trial stage.
Writ petition for quashing of the FIR was 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.
spb/
905wp2670-16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 2670 OF 2016
Mr. Mohmmed Abad Islam Ansari … Petitioner.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents. ---
Mr. Mahesh Vaswahi a/w. Ms. Manashi Mahanta i/by Ms. Anuradha Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the State.
CORAM : V. M. KANADE AND Ms.NUTAN D.SARDESSAI,JJ.
DATE : 23rd NOVEMBER, 2016
P.C. :
1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned APP for the State.
2 By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ and/or order and direction for quashing the first information report dated 23.07.2014, which is registered at the Dharavi Police Station under sections 376(d) r/w. 34 of the IPC vide CR No. 280 of
1/3
Borey
spb/
905wp2670-16.odt
3 It is not possible to accept this submission of the petitioner. It is well settled by the catenas of judgments of the Apex Court that FIR can be quashed by this court by exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Cr.P.C. but this power has to be exercised in a rare cases. We find that there is some material on record which shows involvement of the Applicant. We do not want to express any opinion on merits of the case.
2/3
Borey
905wp2670-16.odt
spb/
Secondly, the Petitioner had initially approached this court for quashing the FIR by filing a criminal writ petition no. 1431 of 2015. Said writ petition was dismissed by this court by order dated 17th August, 2015. The Division Bench of this court has observed in the said order that the investigation is in progress and, therefore, we are not inclined to quash the proceedings at this stage. Now the investigation is over and the chargesheet has already been filed. So there is some material brought on record by the prosecution. At this stage to question as to whether any material has been suppressed by the investigating officer cannot be gone into while exercising writ jurisdiction for the purpose of quashing of the complaint. It is always open for the petitioner/ applicant to raise this issue at the trial. Needless to state that if the charge is framed, the petitioner/ applicant is at liberty to take application for discharge. If such application is filed, it shall be heard on merits in accordance with law.
4 The Petition is disposed of.
(Ms.NUTAN D.SARDESSAI,J) (V.M.KANADE,J)
3/3
Borey
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the first information report alleging rape should be quashed in view of alleged suppressed material and expired complainant.
Whether the objection regarding suppressed material by the investigating officer can be examined at the stage of quashing proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohmmed Abad Islam Ansari
The State of Maharashtra
V. M. Kanade
Nutan D. Sardesai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
