The High Court of Bombay dismissed a criminal writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR. Bench found prima facie allegations disclosed offence ingredients, requiring investigation; refused intervention under Section 482 CrPC.
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.
{1}
10 sr.no..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
10 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 940 OF 2016
GANPAT S/O NAMDEO PARKALE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Vikram R. Dhorde APP for Respondents: Mr. A. M. Phule
. . .
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
DATE : 9TH DECEMBER, 2016.
PER COURT:
1] Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for
the State.
2] Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to allegations in the FIR and submits that the ingredients of the alleged offences are not spelt out. He invited our attention to the provisions of various sections which are mentioned in the FIR. He further submits that pursuant to the contract/agreement between the petitioner and the government, he is doing the business of excavation of sand and selling it. He further submits that, in fact, the vehicle was allegedly seized after 9 hours from the loading of sand. He is no way concerned with the alleged offences. The Government Officer was present when the sand was loaded. He further submits that 4 brass sand was sold and to that effect receipts were issued. He submits that if allegations in the FIR are taken at its face value and read in its entirety, ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted. Therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed.
10 sr.no..odt
{2}
3] On the other hand, learned APP invited our attention to the investigation papers and also to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.3. He submits that, as a matter of fact, the SMS sent by the petitioner on designated number was in fact for only 2 brass and accordingly, only two brass sand was loaded. He further submits that, as a matter of fact, 6 brass sand was found in the vehicle, which was seized by the authorities and, therefore, the excess quantity of 4 brass sand found loaded is nothing but cheating. The sand seized is over and above the 2 brass sand. Token was issued only for loading 2 brass sand. He further submits that the allegations in the FIR clearly disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences. Therefore, further investigation needs to be done. In that view of the matter he prays that the petition for quashing the FIR may be rejected.
4] We have heard the counsel for petitioner, learned APP for State and also carefully perused the allegations in the FIR. It is not necessary to dilate upon the allegation extensively. Suffice it to reproduce, Clause Nos. 10 and 11 of the FIR which read thus :-
“10. rFkkih lnj okgu dzekad MH 15 EF 3555 ;kaps pkyd Jh-Hkkuqnkl jkÄqth 'ksGds ;kauk lnj SMATS Vksdu dzekad 1603108396 gk R;kapsOnkjs ns.;kr vkysY;k ikorh dza- 64 o dza65 oj Vkdqu izR;sd ikorhoj 2 czkl v'kh ,dq.k 4 czkl okGq okgrqd dj.;kpk ijokuk fnyk-
5] Upon reading the allegations in the FIR and in particular, the allegations which are reproduced hereinabove, we are of the prima-facie
10 sr.no..odt
opinion that the ingredients of the alleged offences are disclosed. The FIR needs investigation. No case is made out for interference in exercise of our jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
[K.K.SONAWANE] [ S. S. SHINDE ] JUDGE JUDGE
grt/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the ingredients of alleged offences, as per FIR allegations, disclose a prima facie case for interference under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the Writ Petition seeking quashing of the FIR deserves to be allowed or dismissed.
GANPAT S/O NAMDEO PARKALE
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
S.S. SHINDE
K.K. SONAWANE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
