Dismissed

Rahul Parshuram Devkar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Mar 2021WP/1316/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal writ petition challenged the FIR regarding offences including dacoity and related charges. The higher court rejected the prayer to quash the FIR despite alleged settlement, holding that serious offences require completion of investigation and finding the deletion of specific charges unjustified.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition for quashing of FIR was rejected. Directions were issued to the Commissioner of Police to inquire into the investigating officer's deletion of Section 395 IPC.

Rahul Parshuram Devkar and Ors. Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

WP-1316-2021 (J).doc

¶2

Digitally

¶3

signed by 1 / 5 Vishwanath Vishwanath S. Sherla S. Sherla Date: 2021.03.18 18:16:16 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY +0530 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1316 OF 2021

¶5

1. Shri. Rahul Parshuram Devkar Age- 40, Indian Inhabitant, R/at. Vijayprabha CHS, Anudan Niwas, Nehru Nagar, Pimpri, Pune.

¶6

2. Shri. Mahesh Shamrao Manjalkar Age- 32, Indian Inhabitant, R/at. Manjalkar Chawl, Nehru Nagar, Pimpri, Pune.

¶7

3. Shri. Vijay Dhanaji Pawar Age- 40, Indian Inhabitant, R/at, Anudan Niwas, Vijay Prabha CHS Nehru Nagar, Pimpri, Pune.

¶8

4. Shri. Chikkya @ Mahesh Subhash Jadhav Age- 33, Indian Inhabitant, A/at. Choudhary Chawl, Behind Jyoti English School, Nehru Nagar, Pimpri, Pune.

¶9

5. Shri. Santosh Shankar Kattimani Age-31, Indian Inhabitant, R/at. Pragnya Vikas CHS, Vitthal Nagar, Pimpri, Pune.

¶10

6. Shri. Sagar Namdev Tandale Age- 30, Indian Inhabitant, R/at. Vijayprabha CHS, Anudan Niwas, Nehru Nagar, Pimpri, Pune.

¶11

7. Shri. Mangya @ Mangesh Sharad Kapure Age- 36, Indian Inhabitant, R/at. Near Jail Maharashtra Mitra Mandal, Santoshi Mata Chowk, Nehru Nagar, Pimpri, Pune.

Bhagyawant Punde

WP-1316-2021 (J).doc

2 / 5

8. Shri. Yuvraj Bhanudas Kamble Age- 29, Indian Inhabitant, R/at Nehru Nagar, Pimpri, Chinchwad, Pune. ... PETITIONERS

¶16

Versus

¶17

1. The State of Maharashtra Through Pimpri Police Station.

¶18

2. Shri. Bansi Rangnath Jagdhane Age- 30, Indian Inhabitant, R/at. Near Krishna Mandir, Gavlimatha, Bhosari, Pimpri, Chinchwad, Pune.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Mr. Vaibhav Ugle for Petitioners.
Mr. S.R. Shinde, APP for State.
Mr. Sujit Bugde for Respondent No.2.

¶21

 CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
 MANISH PITALE, JJ.

¶22

 DATE : 12th MARCH, 2021.

¶23

JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:

¶24

.This petition takes an exception to the FIR No. 653 of 2020
registered with Pimpri Police Station for the offences punishable under
Sections 395, 141, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 427 of Indian Penal Code,
Section 4 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 and Section 37 (1) and 135 of Bombay
Police Act, 1951.

¶25

2. It is submitted that the parties have amicably settled the dispute, therefore, on the basis of alleged settlement the FIR may be

Bhagyawant Punde

WP-1316-2021 (J).doc

3 / 5

quashed. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in the alternate
submits that even on merits the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed.

¶30

3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the
allegations levelled by Respondent No. 2 against the petitioners are due to
political vendetta. During the course of investigation the investigating officer
came to the conclusion that no offence under Section 395 of IPC is made out
against the Petitioners and the investigating officer vide its report dropped
Section 395 of IPC. It is submitted that the FIR is registered as counter blast
to the crime registered against son of Respondent No. 2 with Pimpri Police
Station. The allegations made in the subject FIR are without any substance
and continuing the further investigation would amount to the abuse of the
process of law.

¶31

4.Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 invited our
attention to the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent and submits that the
parties have amicably settled the dispute, therefore, the impugned FIR may
be quashed.

¶32

5.We have carefully perused the averments in the affidavit filed
by Respondent No.2. There is no cogent reasons stated in the reply, so as to
consider the prayer for quashing the impugned FIR on the basis of amicable

Bhagyawant Punde

WP-1316-2021 (J).doc

4 / 5

settlement. It is only mentioned in the affidavit that there is no objection for
quashing the FIR.

¶37

6.We have carefully considered the allegations in the FIR and we
are of the prima facie opinion that the investigating officer was not justified
in deleting Section 395 of IPC. In fact, upon perusal of the allegations in the
FIR, there is an allegation that golden chain worn by the informant was
snatched and taken away by the accused. The accused persons with the help
of wooden logs caused damage to the vehicles. An alleged incident had
taken place at public place which in our opinion has impact upon the
society. Therefore, it is not proper to quash the FIR on the basis of alleged
settlement or on merits.

¶38

7.The Supreme Court in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh
Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others1 observed that while considering the prayer

¶39

for quashing the FIR on the basis of settlement, the stage of the
investigation should be taken into consideration and the investigating officer
should be allowed to complete the investigation.

¶40

The offences alleged in the present impugned FIR are serious in
nature and therefore, it is necessary to allow the investigating officer to
complete the investigation.

¶41

1 (2019) 5 SCC 688

Bhagyawant Punde

WP-1316-2021 (J).doc

5 / 5

8.Therefore, the prayer of the Petitioners to quash the impugned
FIR on the basis of alleged settlement stands rejected. Even otherwise on
merits the impugned FIR cannot be quashed. Hence, the writ petition stands
rejected.

¶46

9.We direct the Commissioner of Police, Pimpri-Chinchwad, to
cause inquiry of concerned investigating officer for not causing proper
investigation and casually deleting Section 395 of IPC from the FIR. The
Commissioner of Police, Pimpri-Chinchwad to submit report to this Court
within four weeks.

¶47

10.The Registry shall send copy of this order to the office of
Commissioner of Police, Pimpri-Chinchwad by the fastest mode of
communication.

¶48

11.The observations made herein above are prima facie in nature
and confined to the adjudication of the present writ petition only.

¶49

12.List the matter on 22nd April 2021 under the caption ‘For
Compliance’ of directions to the Commissioner of Police, Pimpri-Chinchwad.

¶50

( MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶51

(S. S. SHINDE, J.)

¶52

Bhagyawant Punde

Rahul Parshuram Devkar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Parshuram Devkar and Ors. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raskin Pinakin Engineer and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Subhash Dnyaneshwar Deshpande and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ajay Mukund Vishwkarma and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kiran Vikas Adagale @ Kiran Raju Waydande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Salim Hasan Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Aashish Bansi Jagdhane and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.