Vijay Hiraman Uke vs The State Of Maharashtra

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

The application seeks quashing of Charge-sheet dated 06.11.1987 arising out of Crime No.266 of 1987 registered with Police Station, Gadge Nagar, Amravati, wherein applicant was booked under Sections 395, 147, 148, 149, 353, 332, 333, 324, 325, 336, 337, 447 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, as well as Sessions Case No. 421/2019, pending before the District Judge-4, Amravati, on the ground of delay in concluding the trial, so also the absence of material so as to sustain the prosecution against the applicant.

According to Mr. Vipul Bhise, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, the incident took place in the year 1987, wherein differences arose between groups of students from two different educational institutions. The police report and the material collected during the course of investigation does not make out prima facie case against the applicant. According to him, the applicant has been named in the FIR in the category of injured victim. That being so, the provisions under Section 149 of the IPC are invoked against the applicant only because the applicant was allegedly present on the spot of the incident. According to him, none of the witnesses has named the applicant as accused person and in such an eventuality, the prosecution cannot be taken to its logical end.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would invite my attention to the order of the Division Bench passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.423 of 2023 dated 12.02.2024 in the same crime in relation to other co-accused, wherein, the application of the other two co-accused was allowed and charge-sheet was quashed and set aside to the extent of the applicants therein.

As against this, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor urged that the role of the applicant can only be appreciated while deciding the matter at the trial as the applicant is named in the FIR in the aforesaid crime, since he was one of the students who had participated in the incident.

I have considered the rival submissions. It can be gathered from the record that the incident in question has occurred in the year 1987 which led to registration of Crime No.266 of 1987 for the aforesaid offences. The record further shows that the provisions of Section 149 of the IPC are invoked against the applicant in spite of the fact that there is no eye witness naming the applicant as accused, having actually participated in the offence in question. Undisputedly, the FIR bears reference of the applicant in the category of injured in the occurrence.

Considering the genesis of the offence, the material in charge-sheet and that the case is based on conjecture and surmises, the prosecution cannot be taken to its logical end in order to achieve the very object of securing conviction of the applicant.

Apart from the above, the reason for which the trial Court did not conclude the trial for more than 38 years may be due to the number of persons who are arrayed as accused in the crime.

In this background, no fruitful purpose would be served, by keeping the prosecution pending against the applicant. As regards the other co-accused, this Court has already quashed the prosecution against the accused persons who are similarly situated vide orders dated 12.02.2024, 03.12.2024, 19.03.2025 and 09.06.2026 passed in Criminal Writ Petition Nos.423/2023, 834/2024, 647/2024 and APL No.2038/2025, respectively.

Consequently, the application is allowed.

The charge-sheet in Sessions Case No.421 of 2019 pending before learned District Judge-4, Amravati arising out of First Information Report bearing No.266 of 1987 registered with Police Station, Gadge Nagar, Amravati for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 147, 148, 149, 353, 332, 333, 324, 325, 336, 337, 447 and 427 of the IPC read with Section 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 is hereby quashed and set aside qua the present applicant only.

Rule made absolute in the above said terms. No order as to costs.