Allowed

Pawan @ Sandip Omprakash Sharma and 2 Others v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Barshitakli Dist.Akola and Another

Bombay HC10 Aug 2021APL/668/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench quashed the First Information Report No. 229/2020 and charge-sheet No. 79/2020 against applicants for offences under Sections 307, 504, and 25 of the relevant codes. The Court held that the offence under Section 307 was not seriously established and the parties had mutually resolved the family dispute.

What did the court decide?

Quashing and setting aside of First Information Report No. 229/2020 and charge-sheet No. 79/2020.

Pawan @ Sandip Omprakash Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Cri.APL No.668.21-J.odt

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 668 OF 2021

¶5

1. Pawan @ Sandip Omprakash Sharma, Aged about 40 Years, Occ. : Agriculturist,

¶6

1. Arun Omprakash Sharma, Aged about 48 Years, Occ. : Business,

¶7

Omprakash Murlidhar Sharma, Aged about 70 Years, Occ. : Business, All the above (1) to (3) are R/o. At Post Eranda, Tq. Barshitakli, Dist. Akola. ….. APPLICANTS

¶8

. . . VERSUS . . .

¶9

State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Barshitakli, District : Akola.

¶10

Narendra S/o. Murlidhar Sharma, Aged about 59 Years, Occ. : Agriculturist, R/o. Durga Apartment, Flat No.A-3, Nityanand Nagar, Gourakshan Road, Akola, Tq. & Dist. Akola ….. NON-APPLICANTS

¶11

Shri S. V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the Applicants.

¶12

Shri V. A. Thakare, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Non-applicant No.1/State. Shri D. I. Jain, Advocate for the Non-applicant No.2.

¶13

CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE AND AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ. DATE : 10.08.2021.

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)

¶15

Heard.

¶16

2 Cri.APL No.668.21-J.odt

¶17

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶18

By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants are challenging registration of the First Information Report No.229/2020 dated 14.05.2020 registered with the non-applicant no.1 - Police Station along with charge-sheet No.79/2020 dated 05.08.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 25 of the Indian Arms Act.

¶19

The First Information Report came to be registered against the applicants with the accusations that when the non-applicant No.2 went to work at the place owned by him, the applicants allegedly abused him and beat him. It is alleged that the applicants assaulted the non-applicant No.2 on hand by using sword and threatened to kill him.

¶20

The Investigating Agency completed the investigation and filed charge-sheet against the applicants. During the pendency of the proceedings, non-applicant No.2 filed an affidavit in Bail Application No. 566/2020 stating that the dispute arose out of family dispute and the parties have decided to settle their dispute.

¶21

The non-applicant No.2 filed an affidavit dated 22.10.2020 in Bail Application No.566/2020 stating that in order to have cordial

¶22

3 Cri.APL No.668.21-J.odt

¶23

relations in the family, the non-applicant No.2 does not want to precipitate the things and wants to settle the matter amicably.

¶24

The applicants have therefore, filed present application challenging registration of the First Information Report and Charge-Sheet.

¶25

This Court on 22.07.2021, issued notice to the non-applicants. It is stated in the said order that the learned Additional Public Prosecutor shall obtain instructions in respect of criminal antecedents against the applicants and the non-applicant No.2.

¶26

In pursuance of the said order, the non-applicant No.1 has filed affidavit/reply dated 04.08.2021. It is stated in the said reply that there is enmity between the family members of the applicants and the non-applicant No.2 and the applicants have filed crime No.146/2018 against the non-applicant No.2 and the non-applicant No.2 has also challenged registration of the First Information Report and Charge-Sheet. It is stated that another crime has been registered against the applicants on the basis of report lodged by the wife of the non-applicant No.2 bearing crime No.150/2018. It is stated that the non-applicant No.2 has sustained injury on tempo parietal region of palm and ear.

¶27

Cri.APL No.668.21-J.odt

¶28

¶29

Since it is undisputed that the parties have decided to resolve their dispute mutually, we have carefully considered the allegations in the First Information Report and the material produced before this Court in the form of charge-sheet. Insofar as the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, though it is serious offence, at this stage, it would be profitable to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab & anr. reported in (2014) AIR SCW 2065. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court makes it clear that the Court cannot declare to quash the First Information Report merely because the First Information Report incorporates a particular provision which is a serious offence or offence against society. The Court has to make an endeavour to find out whether the information in the First Information Report indeed discloses the ingredients of such offence and the Court can accept the settlement and quash the report/charge-sheet only after the Court is of the opinion that such an offence is unnecessarily incorporated in the First Information Report/charge-sheet. From the perusal of the First Information Report and the material produced in the form of the charge-sheet, we are satisfied that the ingredients of the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code are not fulfilled. We have also gone through the injury certificate and the nature of the weapon used and the statements of the witnesses. On

¶30

5 Cri.APL No.668.21-J.odt

¶31

consideration of over all material, we are satisfied that the injury caused to the non-applicant No.2 is not serious. Since the applicants have mutually resolved their dispute, chances of conviction are bleak. We are, therefore, satisfied that there is no impediment in quashing and setting aside the First Information Report and consequent charge-sheet filed against the applicants.

¶32

We, therefore, pass the following order :

¶33

The First Information Report No.229/2020 dated 14.05.2020 registered with the non-applicant no.1 - Police Station along with charge-sheet No.79/2020 dated 05.08.2020 against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 25 of the Indian Arms Act are quashed and set aside.

¶34

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

¶35

JUDGE JUDGE

¶36

RGurnule

Pawan @ Sandip Omprakash Sharma and 2 Others v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Barshitakli Dist.Akola and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan @ Sandip Omprakash Sharma and 2 Others v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Barshitakli Dist.Akola and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vaibhav S/O Kailas Raut Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Deolapar Dist.Nagpur and Another

Dharmendra S/O Sopan Kamble Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Dongaon Dist.Buldhana

Rajesh S/O. Shravan Rangari Vs Vinod S/O. Bhaurao Pande and 2 Others

Shyamgir S/O Kishorgir Giri and 4 Others Vs State of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Ps Daryapur, Distamravati

Ashok Sahebrao Lahane Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Police Station Officer, Lonar, Dist. Buldhana and Another

Bharat S/O Vishnu Devkar Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary Home Deparment, Mantralya, Mumbai and 2 Others