Vikrant Dilip Bhagat and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Vikrant Dilip Bhagat and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in R.C.C. No.40 of 2022 (arising out of FIR Crime No. 11 of 2022, Police Station Mahur, District-Nanded).

Court's answer

When the evidence was part-heard and no stay had been granted by this Court, the applicants repeatedly sought adjournments on the basis of the pendency of the present application and thereby prolonged the part-heard trial; this was improper conduct.

Ratio / Principle

On the count of the applicants' improper prolonging conduct alone, the Court held this not to be a fit case for exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and accordingly rejected the quashing application.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench — Criminal Application No.44 of 2024, decided 19 September 2025 (Order per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.; Coram: Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ.). Three applicants sought quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the proceedings in R.C.C. No.40 of 2022, pending before the JMFC, Mahur, District-Nanded, arising out of FIR vide Crime No. 11 of 2022 registered with Police Station, Mahur on 17 February 2022, for offences punishable under Sections 394, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned APP produced the Daily Status showing that, while evidence stood part-heard and no stay had been granted by the High Court, the applicants repeatedly sought adjournments citing the pendency of the present application (Exhibit-40 on 16 September 2023; Exhibit-47 on 24 January 2025), and on 30 August 2024 their advocates were absent, resulting in a non-bailable warrant against accused No.2. Terming such prolongation of a part-heard trial improper, the Court held that, on this count alone, it was not a fit case to exercise its powers under Section 482 CrPC. Criminal Application rejected/dismissed.

2025:BHC-AUG:26965-DB

cria-44.24

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.44 OF 2024

Vikrant S/o Dilip Bhagat, Aged About -32 years, Occu:Private, R/o-Ward No.3, Near Office of Forest Range Officer, Baudhwadi, Taluka-Mahur, District-Nanded, 2) Shrikrishna S/o Sukhdev Raut, Aged About – 53 years, Occu:Business, R/o-Ward No.12, Brahmangalli, Mahur, Taluka-Mahur, District-Nanded, 3) Avinash S/o Mohan Chawan, Aged About-27 years, Occu:Private, R/o-Lakhmapur Tanda, Taluka-Mahur, District-Nanded. ...APPLICANTS VERSUS 1) State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station, Mahur, District-Nanded, 2) Dadrao S/o Amrutrao Deshmukh, Aged About-28 years, Occu:Agriculturist, R/o-Aamghavan, Taluka-Handgaon, District-Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Namit S. Muthiyan Advocate Advocate for Applicants. Mr. S.A. Gaikwad, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr. Avinash D. Hande Advocate for Respondent No.2. ...

cria-44.24

2

CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

DATE : 19^th SEPTEMBER, 2025

ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] :

Present Application has been filed for quashing the proceedings in R.C.C. No.40 of 2022, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahur, District-Nanded, arising out of the First Information Report (for short “the FIR”) vide Crime No. 11 of 2022, registered with Police Station, Mahur, District-Nanded, on 17^th February 2022, for the offence punishable under Sections 394, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned APP Produces on record the Daily Status of certain dates before the learned trial Court in R.C.C. No.40 of 2022. It appears that on 16^th September 2023 application Exhibit-40 was filed by the applicants stating that present Application has been filed by them and therefore, the matter should be adjourned. This application came to be filed when the evidence was part-heard. The same Status continued till 24^th November 2023. Then on 5^th January 2024, the application was filed by the applicants for production of documents and the

cria-44.24

3

adjournment was sought for conducting cross-examination of the witness. On 30^th August 2024, when the evidence was part-heard, the learned Advocates for the applicants were absent. Non-bailable warrant came to be issued against accused No.2. Again on 24^th January 2025, on the basis of pendency of the present Application, adjournment was sought by filing Exhibit-47, when the matter was part-heard. That means, when the evidence is part-heard and there is no stay granted by this Court, the applicants are prolonging the matter, which is partheard. This is not the proper conduct and therefore, on this count alone we do not take this to be a fit case where we should exercise our powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. The Criminal Application stands rejected.

[HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE asb/SEP25