High Court quashed FIR registered against applicant for damages to electric motor. Court held that allegations lacked prima facie case due to absence of expert report and FIR was lodged to grab property in pendency of civil suit for partition.
Crime No. 63 of 2019 registered in Rahuri Police Station is quashed and set aside.
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.
criappln2061.19.odt
( 1 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2061 OF 2019
Shri. Amol S/o Bhausaheb Katare Age – 30 years, Occu : Education, R/o. Mauli Nivas, Station Road Rahuri, Tq. Rahuri, District: Ahmednagar. … APPLICANT
VERSUS
Mr. Suresh P. Salgar, Advocate for the applicant Mr. K. S. Patil, APP for respondent No. 1 Mr. R. S. Kasar, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE & S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.
DATED : 04-11-2019
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER :- S.M. GAVHANE, J.)
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, heard finally with the
consent of the parties for final disposal.
( 2 ) criappln2061.19.odt
( 3 ) criappln2061.19.odt
had given legal notice through advocate to the Agricultural University, Rahuri requesting to not to release amount in favour of the father of the applicant. Therefore, to grab the ancestral property of the applicant respondent No. 2 in collusion with father of the applicant filed the present FIR. It is further submitted that no purpose will be achieved by containing the FIR against the applicant as no such incident has taken place. Thus, the learned counsel for the applicant has prayed to allow the application.
( 4 ) criappln2061.19.odt
village Pimpala Mala. There is a well in the said land and on the said well electric motor of 3 HP was installed by respondent No. 2. So also, there is no dispute that when the applicant was minor his mother and the applicant had filed R.C.S. No. 389 of 2006 for maintenance against the father of the applicant and said suit was decreed and monthly maintenance of Rs. 800/- was granted. Said decree was modified in the appeal and maintenance was directed to be paid to the applicant’s mother as applicant had attained the age of majority. Thereafter, applicant had filed Regular Darkhast in Civil Court, Rahuri. There also appears no dispute in respect of the fact that during pendency of said darkhast father of the applicant had transferred 19 Are land in the name of respondent No. 2 and 32 Are land in the name of sister of father of applicant out of gat No. 485 and mutation entry was effected. There also appears no dispute that applicant and his mother have filed suit for partition and possession of land in 2013 against respondent No. 2, applicant’s father and sister of the applicant’s father and said suit is pending. The father of applicant has retired from service in Agricultural University, Rahuri and an amount of Rs. 57,788/- was payable to him.
( 5 )
criappln2061.19.odt
respondent No. 2 on 24/10/2018. So also, on 23/01/2019 in the night at about 8 p.m. the husband of respondent No. 2 had watered the crop by the electric motor and then he had come to the house in the evening after stopping the electric motor. On 24/01/2019 when respondent No. 2 and her husband went in the field at about 8.00 a.m. to water the crop they saw applicant putting the wire in the fuse of the board of electric motor and thus he had tampered the board of the electric motor. When they asked him in this respect he abused and threatened them. Thereafter, applicant went away. Then they found that the motor was not working and thus it is alleged that applicant tampered with the electric motor of Rs. 20,000/-. Except the said allegations there is no material in the form of report of the expert showing the manner in which the respondent had tampered with the board of the electric motor so as to cause damage to the electric motor as alleged in the FIR. In fact it was possible to obtain the report of the expert. Therefore, in the absence of such report it cannot be said that there is prima-facie case against the applicant for the offence of mischief punishable under Section 435 of the IPC. Allegation about abusing and threatening respondent No. 2 and her husband is vague. Another aspect to be noted is that as referred earlier the applicant and his mother have filed suit for partition and possession against respondent No. 2 and father of the
( 6 ) criappln2061.19.odt
applicant and respondent No. 2 and said suit is pending. Therefore, there is substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant that due to dispute between the applicant and respondent No. 2 the present FIR has been lodged against applicant to grab the property. Thus, nothing will be achieved by continuing the FIR registered against the applicant and said FIR would amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, as the offences against the applicant are not prima-facie made out the FIR registered against the applicant needs to be quashed and set aside as per prayer clause (B) of application by allowing the application. Therefore, following order is passed.
ORDER
1. Application is allowed.
[S.M. GAVHANE, J.]
ssp/Nov.19/criappln2061.19.odt
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR registered against the applicant for alleged mischief and intimidation should be quashed in view of the underlying civil dispute over property.
Whether the allegations in the FIR lack prima facie material to sustain a criminal charge given the absence of expert reports and the context of a family dispute.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Amol S/o Bhausaheb Katare
The State of Maharashtra
Smt. Ujwala W/o Pravin Kalhapure
T. V. NALAWADE
S.M. GAVHANE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
