Nivrutti S/O Tukaram Mulamwad and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Nov 2016WP/871/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition seeking quashing of an F.I.R. regarding domestic violence allegations, the Court held that despite no specific dates, the F.I.R. contained specific allegations and ingredients of offences. Thus, the petition for quashing was rejected, leaving the matter for investigation.

What the court decided

AI extract

¶1

cwp871.16

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.871 OF 2016

¶6

1) Nivrutti s/o Tukaram Mulamwad,
 Age-53 years, Occu:Govt. Service,
 R/o-Sneha Nagar, Police Colony,

¶7

 Nanded,

¶8

2) Anita @ Anusayabai Nivrutti Mulamwad, Age-47 years, Occu:Household, R/o-As Above ...PETITIONERS

¶9

 VERSUS

¶10

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through Police Station Incharge,
 Police Station Incharge,
 Police Station Loha, Tq-Loha,
 Dist-Nanded,

¶11

2) Meera w/d Sangram Mulamwad,
 Age-22 years, Occu:H.H.,
 R/o-Changuchiwadi,
 Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded.

Nivrutti S/O Tukaram Mulamwad and Anr… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

¶27

in police department in Mumbai and therefore
Respondent No.2 was residing at Mumbai at the
relevant time. He further submits that even if the
allegations in the F.I.R. are taken at its face
value and read in its entirety, ingredients of
alleged offences are not attracted and therefore

¶30

First Information Report deserves to be quashed.
In support of his contentions that when there are
omnibus allegations in that case F.I.R. deserves
to be quashed so as to avoid abuse of process of
law, he placed reliance on reported Judgment in
the case of Ashok Mahadu Patil and others vs.
State of Maharashtra and another, 2015(2) Bom.
C.R. (Cri.) 416 and Swapnil and others vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh, 2014(3) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 524.

¶32

appearing for State relying upon the statements of
the witnesses recorded during the course of
investigation, submits that on reading F.I.R. in
its entirety and the statements of the witnesses,
there are specific allegations against the
Petitioners which needs further investigation and
therefore allegations in the F.I.R. will have to
be read as they appear and those can be tested in

¶40

disclosed in the First Information Report. It is
submitted that there are specific allegations of
demand of Rupees Five Lakh and also assault and
using abusive language against Respondent No.2 and
therefore F.I.R. needs further investigation.

¶48

are specific allegations against the Petitioners
in the F.I.R. The fact that the native place of
the Petitioners is Rui, is not in dispute,
therefore, when the F.I.R. is under investigation,
the allegations in the F.I.R. will have to be

¶49

taken as they appear and once the ingredients of
alleged offences are disclosed, this Court while
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure cannot quash the F.I.R.

¶50

and it should be left to the Investigating Officer
to investigate into the allegations of the F.I.R.
In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to
interfere in this Petition for quashing the F.I.R.
Hence the Petition stands rejected.

Nivrutti S/O Tukaram Mulamwad and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

Sayyed Ilayipsha Sardar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nivrutti S/O Tukaram Mulamwad and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

Sayyed Ilayipsha Sardar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Ku Pratap S/O Kacharu Jarwal and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sushila W/O Shitaram Taide and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.