Dismissed

Sudhakar Bhikajirao Waghmare v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC1 Nov 2023APPLN/367/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a quashing application under Article 226 for an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the High Court held that the applicant himself demanded the bribe amount as the FIR and trap details established the episode occurred at his instance. Consequently, no notice was warranted and the application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the criminal application for quashing the FIR and refusal to issue notice.

Sudhakar Bhikajirao Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Corruption | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

( 1 ) cria367.21

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

905 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.367 OF 2021

¶4

SUDHAKAR BHIKAJIRAO WAGHMARE VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶6

Mr.S.J. Salunke, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr.S.N.Morampalle, APP for the respondent/State.

¶7

CORAM: R.G. AVACHAT &
KISHORE C. SANT, JJ.
DATED: 01.11.2023

¶8

PC :-

¶9

01. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned APP.

¶10

This application is filed for quashing of the FIR dated 17.12.2020 registered at

¶11

Ashti Police Station, Dist. Beed, for the offence punishable under section 7 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶12

02.It is argued that present applicant has not received the alleged

¶13

bribe amount directly but the amount is received by some other person. There
is only allegation that the amount was received for this applicant.

¶14

03.We have gone through the contents of the FIR with the assistance

¶15

of the learned Advocates for the parties. It is clearly seen that the demand
was by this applicant. At the time of trap this applicant told to give the
amount to one Pophale. Upon that when the informant tried to give the
amount to Pophale, before meeting Pophale he met with one Khedkar, another
employee working in the office. Smt. Khedkar told that this applicant has
told to pay the amount to Pophale. However, upon that other employee
Khedkar demanded amount of Rs.1000/- for herself and total amount of
Rs.6000/- was accepted by her. From the contents of the FIR it is seen that it
is this applicant who demanded the amount from the informant and the entire
episode has taken place at the instance of this applicant.

¶16

04.This Court finds that no case is made out even for issuance of

¶17

notice. The criminal application application stands dismissed.

¶18

[KISHORE C. SANT, J.][R.G. AVACHAT,J.]

¶19

snk/2023/NOV23/cria367.21

Sudhakar Bhikajirao Waghmare v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhakar Bhikajirao Waghmare v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Devichand Munot Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Dr. Vijay Devichand Munot Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vaibhav Manikrao Morale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Raju Rama Naik Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ajit Krushna Ghanekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Akash Sunil Mahadik Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another