AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
The applicants have approached this Court by filing the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the First Information Report dated 07.04.2015, registered as Crime No. 54/2015 with the Police Station Ghatanji, District Yavatmal, for offences punishable under Sections 143,147,148,149,395,506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The applicants have further prayed for quashing of the charge-sheet/Final Report bearing Form No.126/2016 dated 14.12.2016, which is presently pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ghatanji, District Yavatmal.
According to the case of non-applicant No.2 and the contents of the First Information Report, the dispute originated on 06.04.2015 when, during the filing of nomination papers for the Gram Panchayat elections at the Tahsil Office, Ghatanji, an argument took place between the supporters of applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2. In continuation thereof between 9:00 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. on the same day, the applicants, armed with deadly weapons (sabbals, axes, knives and iron rods), reached the residence of non-applicant No. 2, in absence of non-applicant No.2, applicants pelted stones, shouted “break it, destroy it, burn it”, threatened to kill anyone who intervened, and forcibly entered the house by breaking the door and windows while speaking in Banjara dialect and issuing death threats to non-applicant No.2 and his son. Due to the terror created, neighbours stopped non-applicant No.2 from approaching his house. Inside the house, the applicants caused damage to movable and immovable property to the extent of approximately Rs.3,00,000/- and committed theft of cash of Rs.52,500/-, gold and silver ornaments and valuable documents relating to agricultural land, house purchase deeds and jewellery bills, the total value of stolen articles being approximately Rs.4,18,000/-. Being aggrieved by these acts, the non-applicant No.2 lodged the present First Information Report against the applicants.
We have heard Mr. Anil Mardikar, Learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Ved Deshpande, Advocate for the applicants and Mr. M. J. Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant No.1/State.
Mr. Anil Mardikar, Senior Counsel for the applicants submits that allegations contained in the First Information Report and the material placed with the charge-sheet are prima facie vague, insufficient and do not disclose commission of any offence against the applicants. The First Information Report in Crime No.54/2015 is manifestly false and frivolous, being the direct outcome of political rivalry during Gram Panchayat elections. The applicant No.1 was then an elected as Member of the Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal, while non-applicant No.2 belongs to the opposite political group. The entire narration in the First Information Report is hearsay inasmuch as non-applicant No. 2 himself was admittedly not present at his house at the time of the alleged incident. More importantly, one of the accused persons named in the First Information Report, namely Haridas Somla Rathod, had already died before alleged incident dated 06.04.2015. This solitary fact renders the entire First Information Report fabricated and maliciously filed only to harass the applicants.
It is further submitted by the learned Senior counsel that in reality, it was applicant No.1 who was assaulted and threatened by non-applicant No.2 and his associates on 06.04.2015 itself. Applicant No.1 immediately lodged a complaint on the same day, on the basis of which Crime No.50/2015 stands registered against non-applicant No.2 and others. The existence of this counter-case further exposes the mala fides of the present First Information Report.
Lastly, it is submitted that continuation of proceedings in Crime No.54/2015 would amount to gross abuse of the process of Court, therefore liable to be quashed by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants and submits that the allegations in the First Information Report, when read as a whole, clearly disclose a prima facie case against the applicants.
In the backdrop of these facts and argument advanced by the parties we have carefully gone through the record. As can be seen from the said record, there are cross First Information Reports in the sense that the applicants herein on the same day i.e. 7.4.2015 has lodged First Information Report bearing Crime No.50/2015 and offence was registered for offences punishable under Sections 394 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, on the same day F.I.R. in question was registered by the non-applicant No.2 bearing F.I.R. No.54/2015. The written complaint which led to lodging of the said F.I.R. i.e. F.I.R.. No.54/2015 if perused it can be seen that there are as many as 23 accused named in the said complaint. As rightly pointed by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants that as far as accused Nos.4,6 and 16 are concerned, they are not residents of the village where the alleged incident took place. Furthermore, the non-applicant No.19 therein was already dead before the incident. It is, therefore, his submission that the First Information Report is nothing but abuse of process of law. He also submits and as can be seen from the record also that the alleged eye witnesses who were present at the time of incident i.e. one Liyaqat Tawwar whose statement has been recorded on 11.12.2015, Hemant Kale who statement has been recorded on 11.12.2015, Yunus Menon whose statement also recorded on 11.12.2015 are highly belated since the incident in question happened on 6.4.2015. We are, therefore, of the view that the statements being highly belated cannot be given any value and the veracity thereof is doubtful. Admittedly, the applicant has lodged initial F.I.R. and it seems that there is an enmity regarding the elections since the offence was registered against the non-applicant No.2.
As can be seen from the report of the Medical Officer of Shri Vasantrao Naik Government Medical College and Hospital, Yavatmal, there is a report of assault on 6.4.2015 over the applicant in which he suffered contusion over the left supra orbital region. Thus, the veracity of the allegations in the F.I.R. lodged by the applicants at least prima facie is established. Taking overall view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the F.I.R. lodged by the non-applicant No.2 do not make out any case since the statements of the prosecution recorded by the prosecuting agency as also the other material on record more particularly the fact that the applicant lodged F.I.R. in the earlier point of time, it can be said that the F.I.R. impugned in the application is only by way of counter-blast and to seek vengeance.
The quality of investigation and the statements recorded by the witnesses being highly belated are vague and omnibus in nature. A beneficial reference in this regard can be made to judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947, wherein the counsel stated that the material collected by the Investigating Agency must be sterling and impeccable quality to continue criminal prosecution. There is no chance of any conviction being recorded by the trial Court on the basis of evidence collected by the prosecution during the course of investigation. The situation would be within the parameters of the Judgment in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604,
1.Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
2.Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
3.Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
4.Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code.
5.Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6.Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7.Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
We, therefore, pass the following order :
O R D E R
The application is allowed.
The First Information Report bearing No.54/2015 and the consequent charge-sheet bearing No.126/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 395, 504, 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code along with Regular Criminal Case No.234/2015 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ghatanji is quashed and set aside to the extent of the applicants.
The application is disposed of.