Anil @ Anna Dnyandeo Pawar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Aug 2017APPLN/1204/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench at Aurangabad rejected an application to quash an FIR. The Court held that allegations prima facie disclosed offences under Sections 376 and 313 IPC, necessitating further investigation rather than quashing based on alleged compromise.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of the FIR was rejected; matter left for further investigation.

What the court decided

Anil @ Anna Dnyandeo Pawar and Others Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1204.2017 Cri.Appln.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1204 OF 2017

¶5

1. Anil @ Anna Dnyandeo Pawar Age: 38 years, Occu.: Agri.

¶6

2. Dhanraj s/o.Dnyandeo Pawar Age: 36 years, Occu.: Agri.

¶7

3. Shantabai w/o.Dnyandeo Pawar Age: 58 Years, Occu.: Household

¶8

4. Chaya w/o. Anil @ Anna Dnyandeo Pawar, Age :35 Years, Occu. Household All R/o. Nibhari, Tq.-Newasa, Dist.- Ahmednagar. APPLICANTS

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Police Inspector, Sonai Police Station, Sonai, Ta. Newasa, District Ahmednagar.

¶11

2.Yogita Chimaji Sable
Age: 35 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. A/P-Shiregaon, Tq.-Newasa,
Dist.-Ahmednagar
Now R/o. Nibhari, Tq.Newasa,
Dist. - Ahmednagar. RESPONDENTS

¶12

...

¶13

Mr.Amol S.Gandhi, Advocate for the applicants
Mr.K.N.Lokhande, APP for Respondent–State
Mr.N.S.Tekale, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶14

...

¶15

1204.2017 Cri.Appln.odt

¶16

¶17

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
 A.M.DHAVALE,JJ.
 Date: 09.08.2017

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

1.Heard the learned counsel appearing

¶20

for the applicants, learned APP appearing for
the respondent-State, and the learned counsel
appearing for respondent no.2.

¶21

2.The learned counsel appearing for

¶22

the applicants submits that, respondent no.2

¶23

has no objection for quashing the First
Information Report [for short 'FIR'], and to

¶24

that effect she has filed the affidavit.
Respondent no.2 is residing with applicant
no.1; they have extramarital relations. He

¶25

further submits that even on merits, even if

¶26

the allegations in the FIR are taken at its

¶27

face value and read in its entirety, the

¶28

alleged offence punishable under Section 376
of the IPC is not disclosed, inasmuch as

¶29

1204.2017 Cri.Appln.odt

¶30

¶31

respondent no.2 was major at the relevant time and relationship between applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 was consensual. He further submits that even the alleged offence punishable under Section 313 of the IPC is concerned, there are general allegations without attributing any specific overt act qua applicants. He further submits that the prosecution agency has not collected the sufficient material during the course of investigation to substantiate the allegations, made against the applicants of causing miscarriage without consent of respondent no.2. Therefore, he submits that the FIR deserves to be quashed. In support of his aforesaid contentions, he invites our attention to the unreported judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd.Bablu Kasiruddin Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra & another in Writ Petition No.2821 of 2017, decided on 19^th July, 2017.

¶32

1204.2017 Cri.Appln.odt

¶33

¶34

3.On the other hand, learned APP

¶35

appearing for the respondent-State relying
upon the investigation papers submits that
during the course of investigation,

¶36

sufficient material has been collected by the Investigation Officer, and on the basis of the said material the trial can proceed. He submits that upon reading the allegations in the FIR in its entirety, an ingredients of the alleged offences have been attracted and consequently the alleged offences have been disclosed. He further submits that so far offence punishable under Section 313 of the IPC is concerned, the said offence is against the public, and therefore, the judgment in the case of the Mohd.Bablu Kasiruddin Shaikh [supra] is not applicable in the facts of present case.

¶37

4.Learned counsel appearing for the
respondent no.2 joins the prayer of the

¶38

1204.2017 Cri.Appln.odt

¶39

¶40

applicants and submits that respondent no.2
has no objection for quashing the FIR.

¶41

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length. With their able assistance, we have carefully perused the allegations in the FIR. The allegations in the FIR, prima facie, disclosed the alleged offences. In the case of Mohd.Bablu Kasiruddin Shaikh [supra], in the facts of that case the Court reached to the conclusion that the offence under Section 375 is not made out. The facts of the present case are quite different inasmuch as apart from the allegations, which would attract offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC against the applicant no.1, there are specific allegations against all the accused which would prima facie disclose the alleged offence punishable under Section 313 of the IPC.

¶42

1204.2017 Cri.Appln.odt

¶43

¶44

6.When there is prayer for quashing of

¶45

the FIR, and if the allegations in the FIR, prima facie discloses an alleged offence / offences, in such cases matter should be left for further investigation. An evaluation of truth or falsity thereof cannot be gone into,

¶46

as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Madan Razak Vs. State of Bihar and others¹ .

¶47

7.In that view of the matter, we are
not inclined to quash the FIR on the basis of
the alleged compromise/settlement between the
applicants and respondent no.2 or on merits

¶48

also. For the reasons afore-stated, the
application for quashing of the FIR stands
rejected.

¶49

8.The observations made hereinabove

¶50

are prima facie in nature, and confined to the adjudication of the present application only, and shall not be construed as an 1 2016 Cri.L.J. 676

¶51

1204.2017 Cri.Appln.odt

¶52

¶53

impediment to avail of an appropriate
remedy, in the event of filing charge-sheet
by the Investigating Officer.

¶54

 [A.M.DHAVALE] [S.S.SHINDE]
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶55

DDC

Anil @ Anna Dnyandeo Pawar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Anil @ Anna Dnyandeo Pawar and Others 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

Amit S/O Arun Deshpande and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shaikh Saber S/O. Shaikh Usman Patel and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Syed Gani Syed Abdual Raheem Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Home Department Matralaya, Mumbai and Others

Balasaheb S/O. Vishwanath Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amol S/O. Vasant Wakale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Umashankar S/O. Surajprasad Jaiswal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.