Allowed

Rajendra S/O Panjabrao Lahe and 2 Others v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Police Station Karanja (Rural), Tq. Karanja, Dist. Washim and 1 Anr.

Bombay HC21 Sept 2021APL/411/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application sought quashing of an FIR alleging offences under IPC Sections 354, 294, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34. The Court noted the existence of a reciprocal FIR lodged by the complainant, which was dismissed earlier. Deeming the current proceedings an abuse of the court process, the Court quashed the challenged FIR.

What did the court decide?

The FIR No.58/2021 dated 06/03/2021 is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute.

Rajendra S/O Panjabrao Lahe and 2… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶2

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 411 OF 2021

¶3

Rajendra s/o Panjabrao Lahe Aged about 60 years, Occ. Agriculturist 2. Maya W/o Rajendra Lahe, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Agriculturist Applicant No. 1 & 2 are resident of .. APPLICANTS Bhadshivani, Tq. Karanja, Dist. Washim 3. Vaishanvi Dhiraj Bande Aged about 30 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o Adarsh Nagar, Shegaon Naka, Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhana Versus 1. State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Karanja (Rural), Tq. Karanja, Dist. Washim .. RESPONDENTS 2. Sau. Arpita W/o Pravin Lahe, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o Bhadshivani, Tq. Karanja, Dist. Washim Mr. A.V. Band, Advocate for applicants Mr. T.A. Mirza, A.P.P. for non-applicant / State Mr. S.D. Chande, Advocate for the non-applicant No.2

¶4

CORAM: V.M. DESHPANDE, & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

¶5

DATE : SEPTEMBER 21, 2021

¶6

JUDGMENT : (Per : Amit B. Borkar, J.)

¶7

Heard. Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶8

apl-411-2021.odt

¶9

By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants are challenging registration of First Information Report No.58/2021, dated 06/03/2021, registered with non-applicant No.1 – Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 354, 294, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶10

The First Information Report came to be registered against the applicants with the accusations that in Diwali of 2020, the applicant No.1 sent “I love you” message to the nonapplicant No.2. Since the said matter was within the family of applicants and non-applicant No.2, the father-in-law of nonapplicant No.2 told her to delete the message and settle the matter. Thereafter, the non-applicant No.2 started construction of her house and on 06/03/2021, when the construction was going on, the applicants came at the sight and obstructed for construction of the house. When the non-applicant No.2 was trying to convince the applicant No.1, the applicant No.1 hold hands of non-applicant No.2 and with bad intention forcibly put her down and fell on her. The applicants assaulted non-

¶11

PAGE 2 OF 5

¶12

apl-411-2021.odt

¶13

applicant No.2 by kicks and blows on her stomach. The applicants No.2 and 3 hold hairs of non-applicant No.2 and assaulted. During this scuffle, saree and blouse of nonapplicant No.2 was torn. They also abused non-applicant No.2 in filthy language and threatened with her dire consequences. Non-applicant No.2 therefore filed First Information Report against the applicants.

¶14

The applicants have therefore challenged the registration of First Information Report by filing present application. This Court on 12/03/2021 issued notice to nonapplicants. The non-applicant No.1 has filed reply stating that the Investigating Officer has recorded statement of witnesses and the statements prima facie depict the role played by the applicants in commission of the said offence.

¶15

We have carefully considered the allegations made in the First Information Report along with the First Information Report lodged by the present applicants, which is earlier in the point of time. The First Information Report lodged by the

¶16

PAGE 3 OF 5

¶17

apl-411-2021.odt

¶18

applicants arising out of the same incident lodged at 18:27 Hrs. on 06/03/2021, but, the report lodged by the non-applicant No.2 has been lodged at 21:02 Hrs. on 06/03/2021 bearing FIR No.58/2021. Since both the reports arise out of the same incident, we have carefully considered allegations in the First Information Report. We have already dismissed the Criminal Application filed by the non-applicant No.2 along with others on the ground that the case diary shows prima facie involvement of the non-applicant No.2 and the injury certificate shows head injury caused to the applicant No.2 herein. It appears that since the applicant No.2 herein had filed report against the nonapplicant No.2 and others, present report has been filed against the applicants. We are of the opinion that the report filed by the non-applicant No.2 is not a legitimate prosecution. In our considered view, continuation of the proceedings against the applicants would amount to abuse of process of Court. We therefore pass the following order :

¶19

The First Information Report bearing No.58/2021, dated 06/03/2021, registered with non-applicant No.1 – Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 354, 294, 323,

¶20

PAGE 4 OF 5

¶21

apl-411-2021.odt

¶22

504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed and set aside.

¶23

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending

¶24

application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

JUDGE

JUDGE

MP Deshpande

PAGE 5 OF 5

Rajendra S/O Panjabrao Lahe and 2 Others v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Police Station Karanja (Rural), Tq. Karanja, Dist. Washim and 1 Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra S/O Panjabrao Lahe and 2 Others v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Police Station Karanja (Rural), Tq. Karanja, Dist. Washim and 1 Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kashinath Motiram Lonkar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. the P.S.O., Selu P.S., and Anr.

Pyar Singh Jagjeet Singh Juni Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., P.S. Nagbhid

Ankush Dharma Chavan (in Jail) Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer, P.S. Khandala Tq. Pusad Dist. Yavatmal

Suresh Mansaram Dakhane Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. Purada Tq. Kurkheda Dist. Gadchiroli

Tushar S/O. Anil Jaiswal Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., P.S. Ramnagar, and Anr.

Dsd Progressive Associates Thr. Its Partner, Dhananjay S/O. Laxmanrao Deshpande and Anr. Vs Shirish S/O. Premchand Jain (Ori. Applicant)