Dismissed

Pradeep Bhaurao Bhangare v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Sept 2021APL/311/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application to quash criminal proceedings alleging forgery and disappearance of evidence, the single-judge bench held that once custody was established, the issue of when the document was torn off was a disputed question of fact. The application was rejected as not fit for judicial review at this stage, though the applicant was directed to seek expedited trial from the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Quashing application rejected; applicant directed to approach trial court for expeditious conclusion of trial.

Pradeep Bhaurao Bhangare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

34-apl-311-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.311 OF 2021

¶4

Pradeep Bhaurao Bhangare ...Applicant

¶5

vs.

¶6

VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR

¶7

Digitally signed by VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Date: 2021.09.28 10:46:28 +0530

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents

¶9

Ms. Vrushali Maindad i/b.Mr. Sudarshan Deshmukh, for the Applicant.

¶10

Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶11

CORAM : S. S. SHINDE & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ.

¶12

DATE : SEPTEMBER 27, 2021

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

. This application is preferred to quash and set aside the proceeding arising out of F.I.R. No. 194 of 2019 registered with LoniKalbhor police station for the offences punishable under sections 417, 418, 420, 436, 468, 471 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶15

Heard Ms. Vrushali Maindad, learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

An endevour was made by Ms. Vrushali to draw home the

¶17

point that the applicant had not committed any forgery of the record and the applicant came to be subsequently arraigned as an

1/3

Vishal Parekar

34-apl-311-2021.doc

accused with the allegations that the applicant had torn off the relevant part of the record and thereby caused disappearance of the evidence. It was submitted that the colleague of the applicant, namely Smt. Badadare, has made inconsistent statements and there is no material to indicate that the alleged disappearance of the evidence was caused by the applicant. Ms. Vrushali took us through the statement of the said witness and the remand report dated 22^nd December, 2020.

¶22

Indisputably, the relevant fle was in the custody of the applicant from 22^nd May, 2019 to 18^th July, 2019. The applicant had obtained the custody of the said fle as an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 was received and he was required to furnish copies of the documents. There are statements to the effect that the document which was allegedly torn off formed part of the record before the fle came to be entrusted to the applicant. In our view, once it is conceded that the applicant was in the custody of the record the aspect as to whether the said document was torn off while the fle was in the custody of the applicant, is a matter in the realm of disputed question of fact. It would be thus be a matter for trial.

2/3

Vishal Parekar

34-apl-311-2021.doc

Resultantly, in exercise of extraordinary and inherent jurisdiction, this Court would not be justifed in delving into the disputed questions of facts. Thus, we are not inclined to entertain the application.

¶27

The application stands rejected.

¶28

However, the applicant is at liberty to make an appropriate application before the trial Court for expeditious conclusion of the trial as the said proceeding may have repercussions on the service prospects of the applicant.

¶29

3/3

¶30

Vishal Parekar

Pradeep Bhaurao Bhangare v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Bhaurao Bhangare 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

Nalini Pravinchandra Kapadia and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sagar Kishor Naik and Ors. Vs Meghna Sagar Naik Alias Meghna Pankaj Kulkarni and Ors.

Abhishek Bhupendra Rathi and Ors. Vs Hema Abhishek Rathi Nee Ms Hema Dinesh Manihar W/O Abhishek Rathi and Anr.

Indarsing S/O Padkya Pawara Vs the State of Maharashtra

Iqbal Ahmed Kabir Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sudhanwa S. Gondhalekar S/O Sudhir S. Gondhalekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.