Allowed

Sham Ramratan Kabara v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Feb 2017APPLN/7000/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application, the High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad quashed a First Information Report and an impleaded proceeding under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC against the petitioner. The court held that as the petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor specifically implicated during investigation, continuing proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law.

What did the court decide?

The First Information Report bearing Crime No. 356 of 2016 under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC is quashed and set aside to the extent of the petitioner.

Sham Ramratan Kabara Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

7000.16appln

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 7000 OF 2016

¶5

Sham S/o Ramratan Kabara
Age : 38 years, Occ : Business,
R/o New Bhagya Nagar, Latur,
Tq. & Dist. Latur.

¶6

..PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1.The State of Maharashtra
Through The Investigation Officer,
Crime No.356/2016, registered with
MIDC Police Station, Latur,
Tq. & Dist. Latur.

¶9

2. Santosh S/o Anantrao Shinde Age : 35 years, Occ : Agri., R/o Shrinagar, Latur MIDC, Tq. & Dist. Latur.

¶10

 ..RESPONDENTS

¶11

...
Advocate for petitioner : Mr.D.A. Mane holding
for Mr. N.R. Pawade

¶12

APP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.B. Yawalkar
Advocate for respondent no.2: Mr.M.S. Shaikh

¶13

...

¶14

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
 K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
DATE : 24th February, 2017

¶15

JUDGMENT : (PER S.S. SHINDE, J)

¶16

This application is filed with the

¶17

following prayer :

¶18

7000.16appln

¶19

¶20

B. This Criminal application may kindly
be allowed and FIR dated 14.10.2016, in
Crime No.356/2016 registered with MIDC
Police Station, Latur, Tq. & Dist.
Latur, under section 306 r/w 34 of the
Indian Penal Code may kindly be quashed
and set aside.

¶21

3.The learned counsel appearing for
the applicant submits that, even if the

¶22

allegations in the First Information Report
are taken at its face value and read in its

¶23

entirety, the ingredients of the alleged
offences have not been attracted. The alleged
offences have not been disclosed against the

¶24

applicant. The wife of deceased Balaji Shinde
earlier filed First Information Report,
wherein there are no allegations against the

¶25

present applicant. Even in the First
Information report, neither the applicant is
named nor any specific allegations are made
against him. It is submitted that, the First
Information Report is lodged belatedly after

¶26

7000.16appln

¶27

¶28

four months of the alleged incident.
Therefore, he submits that, the First
Information Report deserves to be quashed to
the extent of the applicant.

¶29

4.On the other hand, the learned

¶30

A.P.P. appearing for respondentState and the
learned counsel appearing for respondent
no.2, relying upon the statement of the
witness namely Shri Mayur Dhanajirao Thorat
and supplementary statement of Shri Balu @
Parmeshwar Maroti Mali recorded on 15th

¶31

October, 2016, submit that, the name of the

¶32

applicant is mentioned by those witnesses
stating therein that, the applicant used to
visit the house of the parents of deceased

¶33

Balaji Shinde and also the shop of Shri Mayur
Dhanajirao Thorat for recovery of money given
as hand loan to deceased Balaji Shinde.
Therefore, they submit that, this Court may

¶34

not entertain the application.

¶35

7000.16appln

¶36

¶37

5.We have considered the submissions

¶38

advanced by the learned counsel appearing for
the applicant, the learned A.P.P. appearing
for respondent – State and the learned
counsel appearing for respondent no.2 at
length. With their able assistance, we have
perused the pleadings in the application,
grounds taken therein, annexures thereto, the
allegations in the First Information Report,
other documents placed on record and
investigation papers made available for

¶39

perusal. Upon perusal of the copies of the
documents placed on record by the applicant

¶40

at Exhibit `B'/Page 24, it appears that one
PoojaBalajiShindeaddresseda

¶41

letter/complaint to the Police Inspector,
MIDC Police Station, Latur on 3rd June, 2016.
It is stated in the said complaint that, on
1st June, 2016 at about 7.30 to 8, her husband
went to his parents house requesting them for
partition of his share in the ancestral

¶42

¶43

7000.16appln

¶44

property, however, Shri Anantram Shinde,
fatherofdeceasedBalaji,mother

¶45

Shakuntalabai Shinde and brother Satosh

¶46

Anantram Shinde mercilessly bet him and
administered poison, and thereafter without
informing her they took Balaji Shinde to
Galaxy Hospital near Ashok Hotel, Latur. On
3rd June, 2016, her husband Balaji died. It is
stated in the said complaint that, there were
injury marks on the head and allover body of
Balaji. Therefore, she had complaint against
the parents and brother of the deceased
Balaji, and therefore, the necessary enquiry/
investigation should be caused.

¶47

6.It further appears that, brother of
BalajinamelySantoshlodgedFirst
Information Report on 13th October, 2016
alleging therein that his brother Balaji
committed suicide on 1st June, 2016 due to
harassment by the various persons mentioned

¶48

7000.16appln

¶49

¶50

in the First Information Report on account of

¶51

recovery of debt amount from said Balaji.

¶52

Upon careful perusal of the allegations in

¶53

the First Information Report, it appears

¶54

that, the name of the applicant is not
mentioned. There is no allegations against
this applicant. It is only during the course

¶55

of investigation, one Shri. Mayur Dhanajirao
Thorat and Balu @ Parmeshwar Maroti Mali have

¶56

named the present applicant. It is mentioned

¶57

in their statements that, he used to visit
the shop of Mayur Dhanajirao Thorat and house

¶58

of parents of Balaji for recovery of hand

¶59

loan given to said Balaji and the said
contention of Shri Mayur Dhanajirao Thorat is
supported by the supplementary statement of
Balu @ Parmeshwar Maroti Mali and except this

¶60

we do not find any material collected by the
Investigating Officer against the applicant.

¶61

It appears that Balaji committed suicide on
1st June, 2016 and in that respect already the

¶62

7000.16appln

¶63

¶64

complaint was filed by the wife of deceased
Pooja Balaji Shinde on 3rdJune, 2016.

¶65

Thereafter, belatedly after four months, the
First Information Report is lodged by brother
 Santosh.

¶66

7.As already observed, upon reading

¶67

the allegations in the First Information
Report in its entirety, neither the applicant
is named nor any specific allegations are

¶68

made against him. It is not necessary for us

¶69

to give elaborate reasons, suffice it to say

¶70

that, on considering the allegations in the
FirstInformationReportandalso

¶71

investigation paper, we are of the opinion
that, neither the applicant intended or

¶72

abated the commission of suicide by Balaji.

¶73

In that view of the matter, keeping in view

¶74

the exposition of law by the Supreme Court in

¶75

the case of State of Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal1,

¶76

we are of the opinion that, the further
1AIR 1992 SC 604

¶77

7000.16appln

¶78

¶79

continuation of investigation based on the
F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 356/2016 against the
applicant would be abuse of process of law
and hence the First Information Report
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Accordingly, the F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 356
of 2016 registered with MIDC Police Station,

¶80

Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur under Section 306
read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
is quashed and set aside to the extent of the
present applicant. We make it clear that, the
observations made hereinabove are, prima

¶81

facie, in nature and only confined to the

¶82

adjudication of the application of the

¶83

present applicant.

¶84

sga

Sham Ramratan Kabara v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sham Ramratan Kabara 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kesharbai Wd/O Sakharam Barbinde and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ikram S/O Ayyub Chaudhari and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Santosh S/O Tarachand Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Other

Anant Baburao Golait (Gehilot) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shashikant Samarth Pawar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vipul Somnath Patne Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others