SANJAY S/O. KASHIRAM INCHE AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: AURANGABAD)
Sanjay S/O. Kashiram Inche And Others
State of Maharashtra and Others
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) - This Application is filed praying therein for quashing the First Information Report bearing Crime No.260/2016, registered with Jalna Taluka Police Station, Jalna, for the offence punishable under Sections 385, 500, 501 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the applicants invites our attention to the allegations in the FIR and submits that, even if the allegation in the FIR are taken at its face value and read in its entirety, an alleged offences are not disclosed, and therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed. She further invites our attention to the provisions of the Sections 385, 500 and 501 r/w.34 of the IPC and submits that, the ingredients of the said alleged offences are not disclosed. She submits that, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, in the case of Shriram Satwaji Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.2014 ALL MR [Cri.] 3643, has quashed the FIR on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR. She submits that, in the present case also there is delay in lodging the FIR. She submits that, in the FIR there is no allegation that, the amount was actually given to the accused. In support of her contention that, the FIR lodged by the informant-respondent no.3 is mala fide, and based on vague assertions, and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed, she placed reliance in the case of Baijnath Jha v. Sita Ram and Anr. AIR 2008 SC 2778. She also invites our attention to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Battula Siva Nageshwar Rao v. Jasti Venkateswara Rao in Criminal Petition No.7873 of 2010, decided on 31.03.2016, and particular in para 12 thereof and submits that, in case there is no allegation in the complaint that the accused by putting the informant in fear of injury has committed alleged offence, in that case FIR deserves to be quashed. She further invites our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Isaac Isanga Musumba and others v. State of Maharashtra and others  15 SCC 357 and submits that, to attract the ingredients of Sections 383 and 384, it should be mentioned in the FIR that, the amount so demanded was delivered to the accused by the informant. Therefore, she submits that, the FIR deserves to be quashed.
(3.) On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for the respondent-State invites our attention to the investigation papers and submits that, during investigation it is transpired that, the applicants were involved in the alleged offence. In the present case, Section 385 is mentioned in the FIR, and the judgments on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants are in relation to the interpretation of the provisions of Sections 383 and 384 of the IP Code. He submits that, the witnesses have stated that, as a matter of fact the applicants demanded the amount, and therefore, the provisions of Section 385 and other Sections mentioned in the FIR are attracted, and the alleged offences are disclosed against the applicants, therefore, further investigation is necessary.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.