The court refused to quash an FIR under IPC Sections 306, 506, and 34. It distinguished a precedent involving multiple debts and Section 138 NI Act, noting harasment over family shelter loss differs. The court held Section 506 ingredients exist and the case is not rarest of rare, rejecting the application.
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.
1
4.APL-941-18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.941 OF 2018
Sandesh Sakharam Salunke and others Versus The State of Maharashtra and another
…. Applicants
…. Respondents
Mr. Sunny Waskar, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATE : 13 OCTOBER 2021
P.C.
The Applicants have sought quashing of the FIR No.177/2018 registered with Powai Police Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
1 / 4
2
4.APL-941-18.odt
Applicants have chosen to invoke Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before this Court and, therefore, the Applicants are not desirous of approaching the concerned Court under the Code for discharge. Therefore, we should consider the matter.
2 / 4
3
4.APL-941-18.odt
No.391 of 2018. The learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that in this case the statements have been recorded and in the present case the deceased had borrowed money from other lenders as well. The learned counsel submitted that even for Section 506 of IPC, no ingredients have been made out.
3 / 4
4
4.APL-941-18.odt
shelter for the family and the degree of this harassment will be a matter of evidence at the trial.
Digitally signed by PRADIPKUMARPRAKASHRAODESHMANE PRADIPKUMARPRAKASHRAODESHMANEDate: 2021.10.14 17:16:19 +0530
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
Deshmane (PS)
4 / 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for quashing of an FIR for afMurder andAttempt to murder can be disposed of by distinguishing a precedent involving financial transactions with multiple lenders.
Whether the FIR can be quashed if the ingredients for a standalone Section 506 threat case are made out.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Imran Masood Khan and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anotherDistinguished¶19
Imran Masood Khan and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another, passed on 29 March 2019 in Criminal Application No.391 of 2018
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sandesh Sakharam Salunke and others
The State of Maharashtra and another
Nitin Jamdar
Sarang V. Kotwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court