1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2144 OF 2010 1. Bababai W/o Sukhdeo Beedkar Age : 65 years, Occ : Household, 2. Mathurabai W/o Santosh Udarbhare Age : 64 years, Occ : Household, 3. Bugdabai W/o Padmakar Khade Age : 28 years, Occ : Household, 4. Purnabai Rangnath Karanjakar Age : 50 years, Occ : Household, 5. Rukhmabai W/o Ramesh Mankar Age : 30 years, Occ : Household, 6. Sakhubai W/o Govind Patodkar Age : 70 years, Occ : Household, 7. Anita W/o Rajendra Udarbhare Age : 30 years, Occ : Household, 8. Harshabai W/o Sanjay Mankar Age : 26 years, Occ : Household, 9. Varsha W/o Prakash Matpati Age : 30 years, Occ : Household, 10. Kasturabai Baburao Udarbhare Age : 62 years, Occ : Household, 11. Digambar S/o Baburao Udarbhare Age : 32 years, Occ : Agri., 12. Arun S/o Sahebrao Udarbhare Age : 28 years, Occ : Agri., 13. Vasant S/o Sahebrao Udarbhare Age : 40 years, Occ : Agri., 14. Kishor S/o Sahebrao Udarbhare Age : 25 years, Occ : Agri., 2 15. Sudam S/o Samadhan Udarbhare Age : 21 years, Occ : Agri., 16. Rajendra S/o Kannhya Udarbhare Age : 21 years, Occ : Agri., 17. Sudhakar S/o Santosh Udarbhare Age : 22 years, Occ : Agri., 18. Appa S/o Santosh Udarbhare Age : 30 years, Occ : Agri., 19. Gokul S/o Babu Udarbhare Age : 32 years, Occ : Agri., 20. Bappa S/o Babu Udarbhare Age : 28 years, Occ : Agri., 21. Raju S/o Uttam Udarbhare Age : 35 years, Occ : Agri., 22. Nandu S/o Uttam Udarbhare Age : 37 years, Occ : Agri., 23. Ashok S/o Rustum Udarbhare Age : 43 years, Occ : Agri., 24. Ashok S/o Rustum Udarbhare Age : 43 years, Occ : Agri., 25. Madhukar S/o Rustum Udarbhare Age : 40 years, Occ : Agri., 26. Suresh S/o Pitambar Udarbhare Age : 35 years, Occ : Agri., 27. Ashok S/o Panditrao Udarbhare Age : 30 years, Occ : Agri., 28. Panditrao S/o Sukhdeo Udarbhare Age : 65 years, Occ : Agri., 29. Kannhyalal S/o Sukhdeo Udarbhare Age : 60 years, Occ : Agri., 3 30. Ravindra S/o Wamanrao Udarbhare Age : 28 years, Occ : Agri., 31. Raju S/o Baburao Udarbhare Age : 30 years, Occ : Agri., 32. Sachin S/o Baburao Udarbhare Age : 21 years, Occ : Agri., 33. Anil S/o Bandu Udarbhare Age : 42 years, Occ : Agri., 34. Sachin Chanchalabai Meharkar Age : 19 years, Occ : Agri., 35. Raju Gopinath Ambekar Age : 35 years, Occ : Agri., 36. Ashok Ambedkar Kacheshawar Age : 50 years, Occ : Agri., 37. Santosh S/o Murlidhar Udarbhare Age : 62 years, Occ : Agri., 38. Sanjay Salkar Gulabrao Age : 40 years, Occ : Agri., All R/o Jalicha Deo, Taluka Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna. .. APPLICANTS -VERSUS- 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station, Parad, Taluka Bhokardan, District Jalna (Copy to be served on Public Prosecutor, High Court of Bombay bench at Aurangabad. 2. Mahant Digambar Salkar (Mahanubhav), Age : 53 years, Occ : R/o Jalicha Deo, Taluka Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna. ..RESPONDENTS 4 Mr. Santosh S. Jadhavar, for applicants. Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for respondent no.1. Mr. V.S. Kadam, for respondent no.2. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 18th October, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This application is moved under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing of F.I.R. in Crime No. 19/2010 registered by Paradh Police Station, Dist. Jalna. The applicants are the accused for the offence committed under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant is one Mahant Digamber Salkar. He stated that on 13th April, 2010 at about 5.30 pm, he and his disciples were walking towards his Ashram by a public road. Suddenly, he said, the applicants who are 10 women and 28 men, first started abusing him.He said there were about 30 to 40 unknown persons also. He said, they launched attack on him and his disciples. He said, he and his disciples were beaten up by kicks and fists. He said, in the melee, the applicant no.14-Kishor removed his mobile phone handset from his hand. He said, some one removed cash of Rs. 9,500/- from his pocket. He said, the applicant no.12-Arun Udharbhare removed mobile handset of his disciple one Prabhakar. He said, he sustained number of injuries all over of body and his clothes were torn. He also asserted that the clothes of his disciple also torn. He lodged his complaint at about 10 pm on the same day. The police registered offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants. 2. One the same day Harshabai- one of the applicants also lodged her complaint against Mahant Digamber and others with the Police. In her complaint, she stated that on that day at 5 about 5.30 p.m. Mahant Digamber was walking towards Mandir. She said, she went in front him and tried to pay respect to him. She said, he outraged her modesty by touching her breast. She said, she raised alarm but Mahant Digamber and his disciples who were men and women assaulted her. She said, some women came to her rescue and they were also assaulted by Mahant Digamber and disciples. She said, in the melee, she sustained injuries all over her person. She also stated that one Jeevan who tried to intervene sustained serious injuries on his hand. She lodged her complaint at 9.30 p.m. and the offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 148, 149, 354, 324, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered against Mahant Digamber and three others and few other unknown persons. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant insisted that on the basis of the contents of the complaint filed by Mahant Digamber against his client, the Court should hold that the complaint either does not disclose commission of any offence or is is absurd or malicious. He said, the Court should on such ground quash the F.I.R. In order to support his submission, he placed reliance on the well-known judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of "State of Haryana V/s Bhajanlal" {AIR 1992 SC 604}. The Supreme Court held in that case that in following categories(the list is not exhaustive) the Court would be able to quash the F.I.R. The categories is as under : 1 Whether the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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 6 under an order of Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. 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 applicant; 4. Where the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a 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 F.I.R. 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 provisions in the Code of the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide 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. 4. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant contended that the case of his client would fall either under clause 3 or 5 or 7 or all. I afraid, I am unable to accept this argument. The complaint as narrated above certainly discloses commission of offence under Section 395 and other offences such as Sections 323, 142, 143, 147, 148 etc., of the Indian Penal Code. The case would thus not fall within clause `3'. The complainant is not seen absurd or improbable because it seems from narration of complaint that certain violent incident took place between two groups. It also seen that the parties had developed enmity due to certain civil dispute that was pending between them and so there is no difficulty 7 in believing that two groups clashed physically causing injuries to both sides. So the complaint against the applicant is not improbable. It is neither said to be absurd because the allegations of snatching away of mobile hand sets is quite possible, if the parties had mobile handsets in their hands or pockets. It is probable that they will either lose their mobile handsets or valuable articles or they would fall on the ground in melee or they would be possibly snatched away. So the contents of the F.I.R. can not be said to be absurd. For the same reason mentioned above, this complaint can not be said to be malicious. 5. I am told that after the offences were registered, the Police investigated the cases and in one case the charge sheet is already filed and the charge sheet against the present applicant is not filed because there is interim protection given to the applicant. I think, the Police will file the charge sheet once the application is disposed of even against the applicant. Then the applicant can file appropriate applications for discharge etc., The application stands dismissed. The observations made in the order are only for disposing of this application and shall not influence the learned Judge who would decide the cases in future. The interim relief is vacated. (A.V. NIRGUDE) JUDGE gas/cri2144.10 /ok