1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPELLATE SIDE, CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 4143 OF 2008 1. Shailesh S/o Shyam Bhatkar, Age: 33 years, Occu. Nil, R/o Padampura, Aurangabad. 2. Asha W/o Shyam Bhatkar, Age: 57 years, Occu> Household, R/o as above. ... APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra. (Copy to be served on the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad.) 2. Kashianth S/o Saluba Raut, Age 56 years, Occu. Private Service, R/o C/o Dr. Vaishnav, Plot No.11, Shastri Nagar, Near Hedgewar Hospital, Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENTS *** Mr. S. S. Kazi, Advocate for the Applicants. Mrs. B. R.Khekale, A.P.P. for the Respondent/ State. *** CORAM: K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED: 7th OCTOBER, 2009. 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Kazi for the Accused/ applicant and learned A.P.P. Rule. By consent, matter is heard finally. Learned A.P.P. submits to the orders of the Court. 2. The accused/ applicant seeks quashment of proceedings being Sessions Case No.88 of 2008 dated 16th July, 2008 arising out of Crime No.86 of 2008 registered at Osmanpura Police Station dated 16th April, 2008. 3. On 9th January, 2008, in the afternoon, in an incident, accused Shailesh suffered severe injuries by the vehicle motorcycle driven by Rameshwar Kashinath Raut. The impact of the accident was such grave that present accused/ applicant Shailesh was required to be hospitalised and suffered expenses of Rs.85,250/-. There was interse arrangement between Kashinath Raut, father of said Rameshwar and present accused/ applicant Shailesh. The matter was worked out. Initially, the father Kashinath paid Rs.31,350/- up to 16th of January, 2008 and agreed to reimburse the balance of Rs.54,900/- within twenty days. There was an indemnity effected by him. It is thus obvious such indemnity was to be complied within twenty days from 16th January, 2008. 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 4. The case revolves to the FIR lodged by the father Kashinath dated 16th April, 2008 implicating present accused/ applicant to be responsible for his son Rameshwar committed suicide as his son Rameshwar was persistently harassed by the accused/ applicant Shailesh for demand of Rs.1,50,000/- or Rs.3,00,000/- and a threat of elimination. 5. It is more than clear that the affidavit dated 16th January, 2008 had a stipulation to comply within 20 days. It has not been done. The setting of fire by Rameshwar was dated 17th March, 2008, to the extent of 68% burns. He was in the hospital up to 30th March, 2008 and succumbed at 02.30 p.m. There is nothing before this Court to demonstrate that during the course of such admission the said Rameshwar implicated the accused/ applicant by recording any dying declaration, though such facility was available to said Rameshwar or for that purpose to his father. If indeed the setting of fire by Rameshwar or rather committing suicide effective from 17th March, 2008 was due to the nagging or humiliation caused by the accused/ Applicant Shailesh, there was no justifiable reason for his father to wait till 16th April, 2008. It appears the F.I.R. is apparently an after-though to get rid of the solemn obligation effective by virtue of affidavit dated 16th January, 2008 to make reimbursement to the accused/ applicant Shailesh to the extent of Rs.54,000/- or more. 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Taking these aspects into consideration, the prosecution against the accused/ applicant is apparently a sheer abuse of the process. 6. In "R.I.Kapur V/s State" [AIR 1960 SC 866] the Apex Court summarised the categories of cases where inherent powers can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings: (i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 7. The Apex Court subsequently in the matter of "State of Haryana V/s Ch. Bhajan Lal and others" [AIR 1992 SC 604] has indicated seven illustrative categories to exercise powers in terms of section 482 Cr.P.C. The Apex Court, in para 108 of the said judgment, had put a word of caution about exercise of powers in terms of section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. I quite see, it is not necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of a case before trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The 5 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. complaint/ report filed by the father, even if read as a whole, coupled with all circumstances indicated herein before, it is more than clear that the prosecution is an after- thought effected by the father to get rid of his compliance in view to the affidavit dated 16th January, 2008. The Criminal prosecution is manifestly initiated with malafide and malicious intentions. Consequently, the powers in terms of section 482 Cr.P.C. is put in acceleration. The proceedings are quashed and set aside. Application is allowed. Rule made absolute in above terms. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Dated:07/10/2009. ans/4143 6 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 4143 OF 2008 Date of decision: 7th OCTOBER, 2009. For approval and signature THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE K. U. CHANDIWAL. . Whether Reporters of local papers ... Yes may be allowed to see the judgment? . To be referred to the Reporter or not? ... No . Whether Their Lordships wish to see ... No the fair copy of the judgment? . Whether this case involves a substantial ... No question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder? . Whether it is to be circulated to the ... No Civil Judges? . Whether the case involves an important ... No question of law and whether a copy of the judgment should be sent to Nagpur, Goa and Bombay offices? [G. F. ANSARI] PRIVATE SECRETARY TO THE HONOURABLE JUDGE