Dattatray Hanuman Aasbe vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Dattatray Hanuman Aasbe vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim order: notice issued to the added Respondent No.2 returnable on 9.7.2025; ad-interim relief that the trial Court shall not proceed against the Petitioner till then; Petition tagged with Criminal Writ Petition No.4814/2024; both Petitions listed for further consideration on 9.7.2025. Final decision on quashing deferred.

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in Summary Criminal Case No.137/2023 pending before the J.M.F.C., Madha, District-Solapur (arising out of C.R. No.787/2021 dated 27.12.2021) should be quashed. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Leave to amend was granted to add the first informant (Kashinath Talekar) as a party Respondent, since learned counsel for the Petitioner had not added him.

Key takeaways

The Court held it necessary to hear the informant, i.e. the added Respondent No.2, before deciding the Petition, and found that learned counsel for the Petitioner had made out a case for grant of ad-interim relief.ratio¶5
As ad-interim relief, the trial Court was directed not to proceed against the Petitioner until the returnable date (9.7.2025).ratio¶order-ii

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Coram: Sarang V. Kotwal & S.M. Modak, JJ. (P.C., 08.04.2025). Dattatray Hanumant Aasbe filed Criminal Writ Petition No.3719 of 2024 seeking quashing of proceedings in Summary Criminal Case No.137/2023 pending before the J.M.F.C., Madha, District-Solapur, arising out of C.R. No.787/2021 dated 27.12.2021 lodged by Kashinath Talekar, mainly against K.N. Patil, then SHO of Tembhurni police station. The FIR concerns allegations that K.N. Patil caused disappearance of the informant's 2015 complaint against PSI Dhananjay Jadhav (under Sections 166, 167, 217, 218, 201, 120B of IPC and Section 145(c) of Mumbai Police Act), and that the Petitioner assisted in destroying it. Leave was granted to add the first informant as party Respondent; notice was issued returnable on 9.7.2025; ad-interim relief was granted restraining the trial Court from proceeding against the Petitioner till then; the Petition was tagged with Criminal Writ Petition No.4814/2024 (preferred by K.N. Patil) and both were listed for 9.7.2025.

42-WP-3719-24.odt

: 1 :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3719 OF 2024

Dattatray Hanumant Aasbe …..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .….Respondents

.….Respondents

Mr. Sachin Thorat, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2-State.

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & S.M. MODAK, JJ.

DATE : 08^th APRIL, 2025

P.C. :

1. The present Petition is filed seeking a prayer for quashing of the proceedings in relation to Summary Criminal Case No.137/2023 pending before the J.M.F.C., Madha, District-Solapur. It arises out of C.R. No.787/2021 dated 27.12.2021 lodged by one Kashinath Talekar. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has not added him as a party respondent. Therefore, leave to amend is granted to add the first informant as a party Respondent.

1 of 4

Deshmane(PS)

: 2 : 42-WP-3719-24.odt

2. The FIR is lodged mainly against one K.N. Patil who

was the Station House Officer of Tembhurni police station, District-Solapur at the relevant time. The case of the first informant is that he had given a complaint against one Dhanaji Shivaji Kedar as said Dhanaji had trespassed in his agricultural land on 10.10.2009. Inspite of it being a cognizable offence, PSI Dhananjay Jadhav had not entered it in the register for cognizable offences and the FIR was not registered. Because of this lapse on his part the first informant Talekar made a complaint against Shri Dhananjay Jadhav in the year 2015 for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 166, 167, 217, 218, 201, 120B of IPC and under Section 145(c) of Mumbai Police Act. The record of that particular complaint was not available. The contention of the first informant is that Shri K.N. Patil had caused disappearance of that complaint. It is his case that the present Petitioner had assisted Shri K.N. Patil in destroying the complaint against PSI Jadhav.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that

the main dispute between Talekar and Kedar was settled. The

2 of 4

: 3 : 42-WP-3719-24.odt

complaint was given by Talekar against Jadhav in the year 2009. According to him, the said complaint was destroyed somewhere by the year 2015, for which he was holding Shri K.N. Patil responsible. The role attributed to the Petitioner is that he had assisted Shri K.N. Patil in destroying that complaint.

4. Learned counsel submitted that Shri K.N. Patil has preferred Criminal Writ Petition No.4814/2024, in which the notice is issued to the Respondent No.2 i.e. the first informant and there is an ad-interim relief granted in his favour.

5. Considering these submissions, it is necessary to hear the informant i.e. the added Respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has made out a case for grant of ad-interim relief.

6. Hence, the following order:

:: O R D E R ::

i. Issue notice to the added Respondent No.2, returnable on 9.7.2025.

3 of 4

: 4 :

42-WP-3719-24.odt

ii. Till then, the trial Court shall not proceed against the Petitioner.

iii. This Petition be tagged with Criminal Writ Petition No.4814/2024.

iv. Both these Petitions be listed for further consideration on 9.7.2025.

( S.M. MODAK, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Deshmane (PS)

PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE

Digitally signed by PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE Date: 2025.04.17 16:31:01 +0530

4 of 4