Dismissed

Begum Bano Mohd Abdul and 5 Others v. the State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Awdhootwadi Dist.Yavatmal and Another

Bombay HC26 Aug 2022APL/1109/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Nagpur Bench declined to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR and charge-sheet filed over four years ago, finding no extraordinary circumstances, though leaving liberty to seek discharge elsewhere.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of FIR and charge-sheet dismissed. Liberty granted to move competent court for discharge.

Begum Bano Mohd Abdul and 5 Others Vs the State of Mah. Thr… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

4 APL-1109-2022

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1109 OF 2022.

¶5

{Begum Bano Mohd Abdul and Ors. ..Vrs.. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.}

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

¶7

Shri S. Shah, Adv. h/f Shri M. N. Ali, Advocate for the Applicants. Shri A. S. Fulzele, Addl. P. P. for the Non-Applicant No.1/State.

¶8

CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.J. DATE : 26th AUGUST, 2022 .

¶9

We find from the documents filed alongwith the application that the First Information Report (FIR) was filed as far back as on 07.09.2018 and the charge-sheet came to be filed in the year 2018 itself for offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, against all the accused persons.

¶10

Some of the accused persons have approached this Court by filing the present application in June-2022, which is about four years after filing of the charge-sheet and quashing of charge-sheet and FIR is prayed on their behalf. It is submitted that in exceptional case, despite filing of charge-sheet, this Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for considering the prayer for quashing of charge-sheet and FIR.

¶11

We have perused the statements recorded during the

¶12

4 APL-1109-2022

¶13

¶14

course of investigation. We do not find any extraordinary or exceptional case to invoke our inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., after more than four years of filing of the charge-sheet.

¶15

Hence, application is dismissed .

¶16

Nonetheless, the applicants would have the liberty to move an appropriate application for discharge before the Competent Court, if so advised.

¶17

(VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶18

TAMBE

¶19

Digitally Signed By:ASHISH ASHOKRAO TAMBE Personal Assistant to Hon'ble JUDGE Signing Date:29.08.2022 18:55

Begum Bano Mohd Abdul and 5 Others v. the State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Awdhootwadi Dist.Yavatmal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Begum Bano Mohd Abdul and 5 Others v. the State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Awdhootwadi Dist.Yavatmal and Another

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

Yunus @ Injus Mangal Parsuwale Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Manora Police Station, Tq. Manora, Dist. Washim and Another

Somnath S/O Mansaram Bobade and 5 Others Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Patur Tah.Patur Dist.Akola and Another

Kiritkumar S/O Gagubhai Panchmatia Vs State of Mah. Thr. Officer-in-Charge of Ps Mulchera, Tah. Mulchera, Dist. Gadchiroli and Another

Tamanche Nakul Rajubhai and 3 Others Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Tah. and Dist.Nagpur and Another

Chetan S/O Munna Mahato and Another Vs State of Mha. Thr. Pso Ps Ambazari Dist.Nagpur

Rajendra Eknathrao Vikhe Vs the Union of Inida Thr. the Secretary Ministry of External Affairs South Block New Delhi and 2