Allowed

Dinesh S/O Shivsing Solanke and 2 Others v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso Tqbalapur Distakola and Another

Bombay HC7 Nov 2023APL/577/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed the FIR against applicant Rupesh in a criminal trial for offences under the IPC related to a land dispute altercation, noting no material evidence against him. The applications against other applicants were disposed of as not pressed.

What did the court decide?

FIR bearing Crime No.707/2020 quashed and set aside to the extent of applicant Rupesh only.

Dinesh S/O Shivsing Solanke and 2 Others Vs State of Mah… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-NAG:16581-DB

¶2

1 apl577.20.odt

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.577 OF 2020

¶5

Dinesh S/o Shivsing Solanke Age 44 years, Occ: Farmer,

¶6

Santosh S/o Shivsing Solanke Age 42 years, Occ: Farmer,

¶7

Rupesh S/o Shivsing Solanke Age 40 years, Occ: Farmer, All R/o Shelad, Tq. Balapur, Dist. Akola. ...APPLICANT ...V E R S U S...

¶8

The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station, Balapur, Tq. Balapur, Dist. Akola.

¶9

Fulsingh S/o Pratapsingh Pawar Age 62 years, Occ: Farmer, R/o Shelad, Tq. Balapur, Dist. Akola.

¶10

...NON-APPLICANTS

¶11

Ms Ragini Swami, Adv. h/f Shri R.M. Tahaliyani, Advocate for applicants. Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, APP for non-applicant No.1. Shri A.M. Tirukh, Advocate for non-applicant no.2.

¶12

CORAM :- VINAY JOSHI AND M.W. CHANDWANI, JJ. DATED :- 07.11.2023.

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : VINAY JOSHI, J.):

¶14

. Heard. Admit .

¶15

2 apl577.20.odt

¶16

By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶17

Corrected as per Hon’ble Court’s order dated 28.11.2023.

¶18

P.A.

¶19

By this application, applicant nos.1 to 3, who are accused in Crime No.707/2020 registered with Police Station, Balapur, District Akola for the offence punishable under sections 324, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have approached this Court for quashing of the FIR by invoking section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶20

At the inception, learned counsel appearing for the applicants has not pressed the application to the extent of applicant no.1 – Dinesh and applicant no.2 – Santosh. However, she has argued to the extent of applicant no.3 – Rupesh by submitting that there is no prima facie case against Rupesh.

¶21

The State as well as learned counsel Shri Tirukh appearing for non-applicant no.2 would submit that FIR lodged by Fulsingh bears the name of Rupesh and thus it is not a stage for quashing the proceedings against him. Learned APP has made available the investigation papers.

¶22

The matter remains to the extent of applicant no.3 only. It is the prosecution case that there was a land dispute in between informant-Fulsingh and applicant-Dinesh. On the date of occurrence

¶23

3 apl577.20.odt

¶24

around 9.30 am, while informant – Fulsing went to his land alongwith his son Pradip, nephew Sachin and Jaysing he was interrupted by Dinesh from taking water from the streamline. There was oral altercation in which the applicant no.1–Dinesh telephonically called co-accused. At the relevant time, the applicant – Dinesh was holding a stick by which he gave a blow at the hand of informant and his son was assaulted by co-accused by means of iron pipe and therefore, the aforesaid report came to be lodged.

¶25

Undisputedly, the police report though bears a reference of Rupesh however it is alleged that the co-accused have assaulted to the injured. We are surprised to note that the police have not recorded the statement of injured-Pradip, Sachin and Jaysing. The police paper contains statements of two witnesses, whose names we are not disclosing at this stage. Both witnesses have stated inconsonance with the contents of FIR meaning thereby only stated about the role of other two accused but spoke nothing against Rupesh.

¶26

In the circumstances, there is absolutely no material against Rupesh and therefore continuation of trial against applicant-Rupesh amounts to abuse of the process of Court.

¶27

In view of that, the following order :

¶28

4 apl577.20.odt

¶29

The application to the extent of applicants – Dinesh and Santosh stands disposed of since not pressed.

¶30

The application to the extent of applicant – Rupesh is allowed.

¶31

Corrected as per Hon’ble Court’s order dated 28.11.2023.

¶32

P.A.

¶33

FIR bearing Crime No.707/2020 registered with Police Station, Balapur, District Akola for the offence punishable under sections 324, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of applicant – Rupesh only.

¶34

(M.W. CHANDWANI, J)

¶35

(VINAY JOSHI, J.)

¶36

Wagh

Dinesh S/O Shivsing Solanke and 2 Others v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso Tqbalapur Distakola and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh S/O Shivsing Solanke and 2 Others v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso Tqbalapur Distakola 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

Niranjan S/O. Raosaheb Nirmal and Others Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur - 440010 and Another

Nitin S/O Dilip Rao Chandangir Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso Hudkeshwar Nagpur and Another

Mohammad Hasan S/O Mohammad Bashir and Another Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Juni Kamptee Dist. Nagpur and Another.

Kailash Devideen Japsare Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Police Station Officer, Police Station Akot, Dist. Akola and Anr.

Executive Engineer Upper Wardha Project, B.Z.No. 1, v.I.D.C., Amravati Vs Vishwanath Ramvilas Agrawal Thr. Lrs Smt. Lalita Vishwanathji Agrawal and Others

Executive Engineer Upper Wardha Project, B.Z.No. 1, v.I.D.C., Amravati Vs Ravindra Namdeo Kapde and Others