Allowed

Ramesh S/O. Devidas Dange and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Aug 2019APPLN/1542/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed petitions for quashing of two FIRs registered for offences of affray, assault, and use of weapons. The court found that the dispute had been amicably settled, affidavits were filed, and neither side had criminal antecedents, noting injuries were largely simple except for one fracture.

What did the court decide?

Both criminal applications were allowed, and the rules were made absolute to quash the respective FIRs.

Ramesh S/O. Devidas Dange and Others Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

crapl 1541.19 w 1542.19.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1541 OF 2019

¶6

1] Vishnu S/o. Narayan Dange, Age 45 years, Occ. Agri.

¶7

2] Mahesh S/o. Vishnu Dange, Age 21 years, Occ. Private Service.

¶8

3] Gajanan s/o. Vishnu Dange, Age 18 years, Occ. Education.

¶9

4] Sunita w/o. Vishnu Dange, Age 35 years, Occ. Agri.

¶10

5] Sarita @ Savita Vishnu Dange, Age 19 years, Occ. Agri.

¶11

6] Damodhar s/o. Narayan Dange, Age 55 years, Occ. Agri.

¶12

7] Ajinath s/o. Damodhar Dange, Age 32 years, Occ. Agri.

¶13

8] Laxmi w/o. Damodhar Dange, Agd 50 years, Occ. Agri.

¶14

9] Gangadhar s/o. Narayan Dange, Age 60 years, Occ. Agri.

¶15

10] Ashok s/o. Gangadhar Dange, Agd 33 years, Occ. Agri.

¶16

11] Surekha @ Dnyaneshwari w/o. Ashok Dange, Age 22 years, Occ. Agri.

¶17

All R/o. Dangewadi, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶18

.. APPLICANTS, [ Ori. Accused)

¶19

VERSUS

¶20

¶21

crapl 1541.19 w 1542.19.odt

¶22

1] The State of Maharashtra, through Investigation Officer, Pathardi Police Station, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶23

2] Ramesh s/o. Devidas Dange, Age 35 years, Occ. Agri. R/o. Dangewadi, Shevgaon Road, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶24

RESPONDENTS [ Ori. Complainant)

¶25

Mr. N.B. Narwade, Advocate for the applicants. Smt. D.S. Jape, APP for respondent No.1. Mr.S.R. Zambare, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶26

with

¶27

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1542 OF 2019

¶28

1] Ramesh S/o. Devidas Dange, Age 35 years, Occ. Agri.

¶29

2] Bandu @ Ambadas S/o. Devidas Dange, Age 42 years, Occ. Agri.

¶30

3] Devidas S/o. Narayan Dange, Agd 60 years, Occ. Agri.

¶31

4] Dwarkabai w/o. Devidas Dange, Age 55 years, Occ. Agri.

¶32

5] Kalpana w/o. Bandu @ Ambadas Dange, Age 40 years, Occ. Agri.

¶33

6] Usha w/o. Ramesh Dange, Age 35 ears, Occ. Agri.

¶34

All R/o. Dangewadi, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶35

.. APPLICANTS, { Ori. Accused]

¶36

VERSUS

¶37

¶38

crapl 1541.19 w 1542.19.odt

¶39

1] The State of Maharashtra through Investigation Officer, Pathardi Police Station, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶40

2] Ajinath S/o. Damodhar Dange, Age 35 years, Occ. Agri. R/o. Dangewadi, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶41

.. RESPONDENTS.

¶42

[ Ori. Complainant]

¶43

Mr. S.R. Zambare, Advocate for the applicants. Smt. D.S. Jape, APP for respondent No.1. Mr. N.B. Narwade, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶44

CORAM :T.V. NALAWADE AND K.K. SONAWANE ,JJ. DATE : 20th August, 2019.

¶45

ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]:-

¶46

1] Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

¶47

2] Criminal Application No. 1541 of 2019 is filed for the relief of quashing FIR bearing Crime No. 0169/2019 registered with Pathardi Police Station, Ahmednagar for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 329, 327, 143, 147, 148, 149 of IPC and Sections 3 read with 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

¶48

3] The contents of the FIR show that respondent/informant has made allegations that the accused, who are from the Bhavki, had intercepted his brother Bandu on 30.3.2019 at about 9.00 a.m. and they were holding weapons. There was some dispute over money and out of the dispute, assault was made by using sickle. The allegations are made that was use of weapon like Pistol also. During the incident, some ornaments were also taken away.

¶49

¶50

crapl 1541.19 w 1542.19.odt

¶51

4] Criminal application No. 1542 of 2019 is filed for the relief of quashing the Crime No. 170 of 2019 registered with the same police station, for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149 of IPC. The respondent/informant therein, made allegation in the FIR that the on 30.3.2019, at about 8.30 a.m. when he was at home, the accused persons came with the weapons and out of previous dispute, they assaulted him by using knife and his relatives were also assaulted by iron bar and kicks and threat of life was given.

¶52

5] During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for both sides submit that the parties have settled the dispute amicably. An affidavit is filed in that regard by the applicants. In addition to affidavit of the informant, affidavit of the injured is also filed. By way of precaution, we had directed the learned APP to ascertain, whether the parties have any bad/criminal antecedents. Today, learned APP filed report which shows that in the past, no crime was registered against both sides.

¶53

6] It is not in dispute that the applicants are from Bhavki. So far as injuries are concerned, only Bandu had sustained injuries like fracture to left Alma, the other injuries sustained by the injured in the incident are simple in nature. In view of these circumstances, this court holds that relief needs to be given in both proceedings.

¶54

7] In the result, both the applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). Rule is made absolute in those terms.

¶55

[ K.K. SONAWANE ] [ T.V. NALAWADE ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶56

grt/

Ramesh S/O. Devidas Dange and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh S/O. Devidas Dange 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shriram Laxman Bangar and Other Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vinod S/O Vishnu Nade and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajay Prabhakar Mainur (C-4707) and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vishnu S/O. Narayan Dange and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Martand Pitambar Patil and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mitharam S/O. Sakharam Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others