The High Court rejected an application seeking quashing of an FIR where a mob allegedly assaulted police officers, noting that specific overt acts were not attributed to applicants and investigation was ongoing, thus insufficient grounds for quashing.
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 ) cria3174.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3174 OF 2017
Satish s/o. Ram Sarwade & Ors.
..Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
..Respondents
Mr.S.S. Thombre, Advocate for the applicants.
Mrs.P.V. Diggikar, A.P.P. for respondent/State.
CORAM : S.S.SHINDE &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
DATED :01.08.2017
P.C. :-
1.Heard learned Counsel appearing for the
applicants and learned APP appearing for the State.
Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants submits that
there are general allegations against the applicants.
There is no any specific overtact attributed to the
applicants. In-fact, the applicants were not present at
the spot of occurrence. He submits that since some of
the persons, who were involved in the procession have
assaulted a Police Officer was no ground to call 200
persons from the vicinity and assault them and falsely
implicate in the alleged commission of offence.
2.Learned APP appearing for the State relying upon
the investigation papers submits that the allegation in
the FIR that one PI Haragbal is assaulted by mob by iron
rod is fortified during the course of investigation in as
much as injuries sustained by the said officer are
brought on record by way of collecting injury
certificate. She submits that the informant has also
sustained injury. The prosecution witnesses have named
the applicants. Therefore, she submits that prayer for
quashing the FIR may not be considered.
3.We have carefully considered the allegations in
the FIR. The alleged offences are under sections 307,
353 333, 336, 337, 177, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506 of
the Indian Penal Code. It prima facie appears that a mob
attacked the police officers who were discharging their
lawful duty. The contention of the learned Counsel
appearing for the applicants that there are general
allegations against the applicants is a matter for
investigation. As rightly submitted by the learned APP
the applicants are named by the prosecution witnesses.
When there are allegations which would attract the
ingredients of sections 143, 148 and 149 of the Indian
Penal Code, in that case if the prosecution brings on
record satisfactory evidence against the applicants, in
that case every member of the unlawful assembly becomes
equally responsible, if he or she acted in furtherence of
common object to be achieved by such unlawful assembly.
Therefore, at this stage when the investigation is in
progress, it is not desirable to quash the FIR. Hence,
the application stands rejected.
4.However, we make it clear that the rejection of
this application shall not be construed as an impediment
to the applicants to avail of an appropriate remedy, as
available in law, at appropriate stage, in the event of
filing of charge-sheet by the Investigating Officer. The
observations made herein above are prima facie in nature
and are confined to the adjudication of present
application only.
[S.M.GAVHANE,J.]
[S.S. SHINDE,J.]
snk/2017/AUG17/ cria3174.17
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash the FIR at a stage where investigation is still in progress and specific overt acts are not yet attributed to the applicants.
Whether the nomination of applicants by prosecution witnesses despite general allegations against them warrants rejecting the prayer for quashing under Section 143 Indian Penal Code.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Satish s/o. Ram Sarwade & Ors.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
S.S. SHINDE
S.M. GAVHANE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court