AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)
Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for both the parties.
This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report vide Crime No. 0093/2021, for offences punishable and decision 294, 323 and 506, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered by the non-applicant No.1 against the present applicants. The application also prays for quashing and setting aside the charge-sheet No.103/2021 dated 29/09/2021, and the RCC No. 1546/2021, pending before the learned Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yavatmal.
As per the contents of the First Information Report lodged by the non-applicant No.2, the accused No.1, Neha, is residing at the Om Society, and Vinod Rai, residing in the same Society, has assaulted and abused her. According to the non-applicant No.2 and as stated in the First Information Report, there is a property in the name of her father bearing Survey No.19/2, plot No. 46, and there are four shop blocks on the said property, regarding which the dispute is going on. It is further stated in the First Information Report that on 09/06/2021, when the non-applicant No. 2 was at the said shop block, the applicant No. 2 pushed her and assaulted her with the help of a stone, due to which she suffered injury to her leg. The said applicant also threatened her with life and abused her in filthy language. It is this First Information Report which is challenged in the present application on the grounds stated therein.
We have heard Shri Matale, learned Counsel for the applicants, as also, Shri M.J. Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant No. 1/State, and Shri S.S. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the non-applicant No. 2.
Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that a meaningful reading of the First Information Report would reveal that no offence, much less as complained of in the First Information Report, can be made out against the applicants. He further submits that even if the allegations in the First Information Report are taken on their face value, no offence can be made out against the present applicants. He submits that there is a cross First Information Report, which is filed by the present applicants, and the dispute is between two brothers, which is essentially civil in nature, and has been given a colour of criminality. He, therefore, prays for quashing the proceedings in question.
Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor while vehemently opposing the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, submits that the First Information Reports squarely make out a case against the applicants regarding the offences as stated in the First Information Report. Furthermore, he submits that the Investigating Agency has recorded statements of the witnesses, who have supported the prosecution case. He therefore, states that there is a prima facie material against the applicants, and therefore, this would not be a case to quash the First Information Report. The learned Counsel for the non-applicant No.2 also supports the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and states that this is not a fit case to exercise inherent jurisdiction.
In the backdrop of these facts, we have perused the First Information Report and the consequent charge-sheet filed on record. As can be seen from the First Information Report, the allegation is regarding pushing the non-applicant No.2 and assaulting her on her leg by way of a stone. The medical report also supports that there was an abrasion. It is a matter of record that the parties who are real brothers are litigating over the possession of the shops in question, and there are various litigation inter se between them. However, as can be seen from the First Information Report, the offence under Section 294, which contemplates obscenity, can at least prima facie be made out at this stage against the applicants as there are abuses made by the applicants. Furthermore, as far as the offence punishable under Section 323, which speaks about punishment for voluntarily causing hurt, can also be prima facie seen to be made out as hurt is caused. Furthermore, as far as offence under Section 506 regarding criminal intimidation is concerned, perusal of the charge-sheet as also the First Information Report would indicate that there is a threat of injury to the person or property, and therefore, the said offence under section can also be made out prima facie against the present applicants. The rival contentions of the parties can only be tested on the anvil of cross-examination when the parties are subjected to a full fledged trial. The contention regarding the applicants or the non-applicant No.2 or anybody on their behalf being in possession of the property would not be a relevant factor at this stage to exercise our inherent jurisdiction, more particularly when a meaningful reading of the First Information Report would reveal prima facie involvement of the applicants in the offence. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. We, therefore, pass the following order.
ORDER
The application is rejected.