Allowed

Dr. Vijay S/O. Annasaheb Makasare v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Jan 2023APPLN/770/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench Aurangabad allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR and charge-sheet. The court found material discrepancies in the version of events recorded by the investigating agencies, rendering the possibility of conviction remote.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 484 of 2019 registered at Shrirampur City Police Station for offences under Sections 353, 332, 368, 283, 188 of Indian Penal Code and charge-sheet RCC No. 139/2020 were quashed and set aside.

Dr. Vijay S/O. Annasaheb Makasare Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

913.APPLN.770.2020.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.770 OF 2020

¶4

Dr. Vijay S/o Annasaheb Makasare,
Age 35 yrs, Occ. Medical Practitioner/
Business, R/o. Valan, Tq. Rahuri,
Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶5

...Applicant
 (Orig. Accused)

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Incharge Shrirampur City Police Station,

¶8

Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶9

2.Richard S/o Raghuveer Gaikwad,
Age 37 years, Occ. Service,
Working as Head Constable B.No. 1416,
Shrirampur City Police Station,
Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar.
At/p. Working in Shirdi Traffic Police
Branch, Shirdi, Tq. Rahata,
Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶10

3. Police Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Respondents

¶11

...

¶12

Mr. D.R. Markad, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. A.R. Kale, APP, for the Respondent – State.

¶13

...

¶14

CORAM:SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI &
R.M. JOSHI, JJ

¶15

DATE:JANUARY 03, 2023

¶16

PER COURT :

¶17

1.With the consent of learned Counsel appearing

¶18

for respective parties, matter is heard finally at the

¶19

Page 1 of 5

¶20

Malani

¶21

913.APPLN.770.2020.doc

¶22

stage of admission.

¶23

2.This is an application under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C for quashing FIR No. 484 of 2019 dated
10.07.2019 registered at Shrirampur City Police Station
for offences punishable under Sections 353, 332, 368,
283, 188 of the Indian Penal Code and consequential
charge-sheet registered as R.C.C. No. 139/2020 filed
before learned JMFC, Shrirampur.

¶24

3.We have perused the record and considered the
submissions advanced by learned Counsel appearing for
respective parties.

¶25

4.The aforesaid crime against the applicant was
registered pursuant to the FIR dated 10.07.2019 lodged
by Gaikwad, Police Constable at Shrirampur City Police
Station. It is alleged that on 10.07.2019 at about
04.15 pm while the complainant - Gaikwad was on the
duty at the Shrirampur City Police Station, he was
informed by PI Bahirat that a fortuner car parked on
the road was caused obstruction and he was instructed
to bring the said vehicle to the police station. The
complainant told to applicant, the owner of fortuner

¶26

Page 2 of 5

¶27

Malani

¶28

913.APPLN.770.2020.doc

¶29

car bearing no. MH15-CT-9444, to take the vehicle to
the police station. It is alleged that instead of
taking the vehicle to the police station, applicant
took the vehicle towards Belapur road. Upon being
informed, PI Bahirat and Kishor Jadhav followed the
vehicle. They stopped the vehicle and rescued the
complainant. The complaint came to be filed against the
applicant for using criminal force with an intention of
preventing the complainant from discharging his
official duty.

¶30

5.The records particularly the report submitted
by PI of Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) indicates that on
the same day i.e., on 10.07.2019 the applicant had
lodged a complaint against one of the constables of
Shrirampur City Police Station before Anti Corruption
Bureau, Ahmednagar. The applicant herein was called to
A.C.B. Office and after complying with all the
procedural requirements, the complainant as well as the
panch witness were sent for verification of demand. The
complainant and the panch witness left the A.C.B.

¶31

Office at about 02.15 pm. At about 02.40 pm the

¶32

applicant as well as the panch witness Shri Vidhye

¶33

Page 3 of 5

¶34

Malani

¶35

913.APPLN.770.2020.doc

¶36

phoned A.C.B. Office and informed them that the
complainant Gaikwad had got in the vehicle and was
assaulting and threatening the applicant. The applicant
and Shri Vidhye also told the officer of A.C.B. that
the said police constable was refusing to get down from
the vehicle. The A.C.B. officers told Shri Vidhye to
stop the vehicle near the Vrindavan Garden at Belapur
road. They proceeded to Belapur and brought applicant
to the A.C.B. Office by official vehicle.

¶37

6.There are thus two contrary versions. One, as
narrated by the complainant that he was forcibly taken
to Belapur and the other as stated in the report
submitted to ACB that when the applicant and panch
witness were sent to Shrirampur Police Station for
verification of demand, the complainant got in the car,
he refused to get down and assaulted the applicant. The
entire incident has occurred in presence of the panch
witness Shri Vidhye. For the reasons not known, the
investigating agency has not recorded the statement of
the said witness Shri Vidhye, who was otherwise an
independent witness. These material discrepancies on
the face of the record, will render the possibility of

¶38

Page 4 of 5

¶39

Malani

¶40

913.APPLN.770.2020.doc

¶41

conviction remote and bleak and continuation of
criminal proceedings would not serve the ends of
justice.

¶42

7.Hence, the application is allowed in terms of
prayer clause ‘CC’. Consequently, FIR No. 484 of 2019
dated 10.07.2019 registered at Shrirampur City Police
Station for the offences punishable under Sections 353,
332, 368, 283, 188 of the Indian Penal Code and charge-
sheet registered as R.C.C. No. 139/2020 pending on the
file of learned JMFC, Shrirampur are hereby quashed and
set aside.

¶43

(R.M. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J)

¶44

Page 5 of 5

¶45

Malani

Dr. Vijay S/O. Annasaheb Makasare v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Vijay S/O. Annasaheb Makasare 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Machindra Tonde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sultankha Musakha Pathan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Swami Suresh Khandge and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Abdul Saeed Abdul Wahab Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Kailas Rameshwar Agrawal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Syed Yousuf S/O. Syed Musa Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another