The High Court allowed a criminal application filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR. The court held that the FIR, alleging political rivalry and defamatory posts on Facebook, did not disclose any cognizable offence.
Quashed and set aside the First Information Report vide Cr. No. 35 of 2016 and allowed the quashing prayers.
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 Cri.Apln 1510-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1510 OF 2016
Sunil s/o Kashinath Patil, Age 38 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Muktainagar, Tq. Muktainagar Dist. Jalgaon. ...Applicant
Versus
Mr. A. N. Kakade, Advocate for applicant. Ms. P. V. Diggikar, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for respondents No.1 and 2 / State.
Mr. G. S. Rane, Advocate for respondent No.3.
CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE & SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI. JJ.
DATE : 29-10-2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT : ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )
the sides for final disposal.
2 Cri.Apln 1510-2016
3 Cri.Apln 1510-2016
Section 153-A, 120-B and Section 506 of Indian Penal Code. The FIR has been lodged due to the pressure from his own party. There is delay in lodging the FIR, which has not been explained at all. FIR is the outcome of political rivalry. Hence, he prayed for quashment of FIR.
“;'k pOgk.k lkgsc vkbZ txnackP;k 'kiFksoj o/krks ,dukFk [kMlsyk xkMwu R;kP;k NkrkMkoj Hkxok Qmdfoy ;kph ckreh vkiY;kyk fnY;kf'kok; vkiy MksGa ch feVo.kkj ukgh---- vFkok HkVdsy vxksnj ej.k vkys rj--- f'kolsuk izeq[kkaph vk.k vkgs t; egkjk”Vª-”
It is now required to be seen whether it attracts any offence. Perusal of the said contents would show the rivalry between two political parties. It is absolutely does not amount to promoting
4 Cri.Apln 1510-2016
enmity between different groups on the ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc. If at all it was defamatory, then there ought to have been complaint by the person who has been allegedly defamed. No word was uttered against Informant/ respondent No.3 in the said post. It is private material between two persons. There is also no evidence, even at this prima facie stage that there was any meeting of mind of both the accused. Informant has not stated what was the connection between both accused inter se. Unless this connection is shown, there is no scope of application of Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. The alleged threat to kill was not personally given. Mere reading of threat is not sufficient to attract ingredients of Section 506 of Indian Penal Code. It requires that threat should be given with intent to cause alarm to the person to whom it is given to cause said person to do any act or omit to do any act, which he is legally entitled to.
5 Cri.Apln 1510-2016
(1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335), the application deserves to be allowed. Hence following order :
ORDER
(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI) (T. V. NALAWADE) JUDGE JUDGE
vjg/-.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the police report discloses an offence under sections 153-A, 120-B, and 506 of IPC relating to political rivalry and Facebook posts.
Whether the qlamshing powers under Section 482 CrPC are exercisable to quash the FIR filed against the applicant based on political motive.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalApplied¶29
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335) · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Sunil s/o Kashinath Patil
The State of Maharashtra
The Police Station Incharge Zilla Peth Police Station, jalgaon
Bharat s/o Totaram Mahajan
T. V. NALAWADE
VIBHA KANKANWADI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
