Dismissed

Sachin Ramesh Shinde and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Oct 2023WP/63/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench at Aurangabad dismissed Criminal Writ Petition challenging orders rejecting discharge application in a criminal revision. Court held material established prima facie case of abduction under Section 362 IPC, as victim was forcibly taken to another place, justifying rejection of discharge.

What did the court decide?

Petition for review of order dismissing application for discharge was dismissed.

Sachin Ramesh Shinde and Another Vs the State… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

WP-63-2023.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 63 OF 2023

¶4

1. Sachin Ramesh Shinde

¶5

2. Malhar Dattatray Inamdar ...Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

...Respondent

¶9

***

¶10

Mr. S. S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. W. Munde, Advocate for Respondent.

¶11

***

¶12

CORAM:R.M. JOSHI, J.

¶13

DATE:OCTOBER 19, 2023

¶14

PER COURT:

¶15

1.This Petition is filed under Article 227 of

¶16

the Constitution of India takes exception to the order
dated 27.01.2020 passed by learned JMFC, Purna on
application below Exh. 5 in RCC No. 106/2017 and the
order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani in
Criminal Revision Petition No. 62/2020.

¶17

2.The facts which led to the filing of the

¶18

present Petition can be narrated, in nutshell, as
under:

¶19

Informant had lodged FIR bearing Crime No.

¶20

31/2015 against the Petitioners. After completion of

¶21

Page 1 of 4

¶22

WP-63-2023.odt

¶23

investigation, police filed charge-sheet and the same
is registered as RCC no. 106/2017. Petitioners filed
application below Exh. 15 seeking discharge. By order
dated 27.01.2020 the said application for discharge was
rejected. Petitioners were unsuccessful in their
challenge to the said order before Revisional Court.

¶24

3.Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits
that here is the case wherein a person who is allegedly
abducted did not return home for a long period and
after staying at various places, on 11.08.2015 he came
back to concerned police station. It is submitted that

¶25

a false report was lodged by wife of the victim.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that
statement of victim more than sufficiently demonstrate
that no offence of abduction is made out against
present Petitioners. In support of his submissions, he
relied on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of
State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Som Nath Thapa and
Others, (1996) 4 SCC 659.

¶26

4.Learned APP opposed the Petition by submitting
that even if the statement of the victim is accepted as
it is, the offence under Section 362 for Abduction

¶27

Page 2 of 4

¶28

WP-63-2023.odt

¶29

is made out.

¶30

5.For the purpose of deciding an application for
discharge, the Court has to see as to whether there is
material available on record sufficient in order to
proceed against the accused persons. In the instant
case, even if the contention of the Petitioners is
accepted that victim Datta recorded his statement on
11.08.2015 to the effect that on his own he stayed at
various places and finally on 11.08.2015 appeared
before concerned police station, the other allegations
made in the statement make out prima facie case of
abduction against Petitioners. The said statement
clearly shows that on 06.04.2015 accused persons came
and forcibly took him on motorcycle. He was taken to
the office of financial company and was confined there
for two days. It is alleged that they assaulted and
threatened him. It is his contention that somehow he
escaped from their clutches and thereafter stayed at
various places.

¶31

6.Section 362 IPC defines ‘Abduction’ as

¶32

“whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means
induces, any person to go from any place, is said to

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

WP-63-2023.odt

¶35

abduct that person”. Thus, definition of abduction
clearly shows that offence of abduction is complete the
moment by use of force someone is taken to any place.
The statement of the victim if goes uncontroverted is
sufficient to prove that he was abducted by the
accused persons. Thus, learned trial Court as well as
learned Revisional Court were fully justified in
rejecting application for discharge.

¶36

7.Having regard to these facts, Petitioners
failed to make out case. Hence, Petition stands
dismissed.

¶37

Malani

¶38

Page 4 of 4

Sachin Ramesh Shinde and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Ramesh Shinde and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Ganesh Hiraman Pimple Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Subhash Shivram Kedar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sopan Ramdas Kasar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sanjeevkumar Dinkar Sarode Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shivraj Nagorao Dhulshete Vs Suman @ Sushma W/O. Shivraj Dhulshete and Another

Chetan Ashok Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others