Sukhdev Birappa Chaugale & Ors. vs The State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

The Petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash and set aside Sessions Case No.354 of 2022 pending before the learned Sessions Court at Solapur, arising out of First Information Report No.622 of 2022 registered with Mohol Police Station. Then, by amendment, they seek to quash and set aside the order dated 03^rd July 2023 as well as the order dated 07^th May, 2025 regarding framing of the Charge against the Petitioners.

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned APP for Respondent No.1. Perused the charge-sheet and the record.

On 27^th July 2022, the informant, Anand Mane, lodged a report against the Petitioners alleging that on 26^th July 2022 at about 04:00 p.m., they obstructed and restrained their motorcycle and assaulted him and his father, i.e. Respondent No.2, by means of an iron rod and stick and caused grievous bleeding injuries to them. Based on the said report, an offence was registered against the Petitioners vide Crime No.622 of 2022 for offences punishable under Sections 326, 341, 427, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. During the investigation, Section 307 of the IPC was added to the present crime.

After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet before the learned Trial Court. It also appears that on 03^rd July 2023 and on 07^th May 2025, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge against Petitioner No. 2 and Nos. 1 and 3, respectively, and the matter is posted for recording of evidence.

The thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the Petitioners is that in Regular Civil Suit bearing No.155 of 2018, a compromise took place between the Son of Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 and two others; pursuant to the compromise, Respondent No.2 and informant agreed to file the necessary affidavit or assist them in the proceedings to quash the FIR bearing Crime No.622 of 2022. The learned counsel for the Petitioners drew my attention to paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the said consent terms and, therefore, urged that, in view of the said consent terms, the proceedings are liable to be quashed and set aside.

It is pertinent to note that despite service of notice on Respondent No.2 on 15^th March 2026, no one appears for Respondent No.2, nor has he or his son informant filed any Affidavit-in-Reply or affidavit to support the Petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners in that regard, that pursuant to the compromise that took place between the parties, the Petitioners are entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings. Even otherwise, the consent terms submitted in the Civil Suit do not help them in support of their Petition, as Petitioners were not the parties to the said consent erms.

Apart from that, on perusal of the FIR and statement of injured eyewitness i. e. father of the informant and the medical certificates produced by the Petitioners (at page Nos.58, 59 and 60), as per the categorical allegations in the complainant, it prima facie appears that on 26^th July 2022, at about 04:00 p.m., the Petitioners obstructed their motorcycle and restrained him and his father, and assaulted them by means of an iron rod and sticks and caused grievous injuries to them. The injury certificate produced on record indicates that informant, Anand has sustained grievous injury (Injury No.1) and one more injury on the left side parietal bone, as mentioned in the said medical certificate, and his father, Devidas, i.e. Respondent No.2, also sustained grievous injury to his right-hand little finger and 3 other injuries. It also appears from the CT Head Scan report of the informant Anand that “fracture of nasal bone on left side. Soft tissue swelling is noted in right high parietal region with surgical emphysema.” The said averment made in the First Information Report, corroborated by the injured eyewitness and the medical certificates, prima facie indicates the occurrence of the incident on 26^th July 2022 and prima facie attracts the ingredients of Sections 326 and 307 of the IPC, and those offences are non-compoundable.

In the light of the above observations, I do not find any substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners are entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings and orders of framing of charge. On the contrary, the material on record, prima facie, shows that the Petitioners are involved in the alleged crime. The filing of the consent terms before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mohol, also denotes the admission of the incident by the son of the Petitioner No.1 and of the filing of the FIR against his father and two others, i.e., Petitioners.

That being so, no case is made out by the Petitioners to invoke the extra-ordinary/inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

As a result, the Petition, being bereft of merits, stands dismissed.

Rule is discharged.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that he wants to challenge the order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also submitted that the Trial is kept on 17^th August 2026 and, therefore, he urged that the learned Trial Court be directed not to proceed with the matter. However, in view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance in his submissions. Hence, his prayer for directing the learned Trial Court not to proceed with the matter is rejected.