Back
2020 Supreme(Bom) 1187
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR
V.M. DESHPANDE, ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
Sahil @ Samer Khurshid Sayeed and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Another – Respondents
Criminal Application (APL) No. 715 of 2020
Decided On : 03-11-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Anil Mardikar, Sumit Joshi.
For the Respondent: S.M. Ghodeswar.
If the delay in lodging an FIR is satisfactorily explained, the court should decide the matter on merits without giving much importance to the delay.
Headnote:
Delay in lodging an FIR: The court referred to relevant case law and held that if the delay in lodging an FIR is satisfactorily explained, the court should decide the matter on merits without giving much importance to the delay. Ingredients of the offenses charged: The court examined the allegations in the FIR and held that they disclosed the necessary ingredients of the offenses charged. Power of trial court to frame additional charges: The court held that the trial court has the power to frame additional charges if the evidence discloses more offenses than those for which the crime is registered.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash and set aside the FIR registered against them for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act. The applicants argued that there was a considerable delay in lodging the FIR and that the FIR did not contain the necessary ingredients for the offenses charged. The court examined the delay in lodging the FIR and the allegations made in the FIR, and concluded that the delay was satisfactorily explained and that the allegations disclosed the ingredients of the offenses charged. The court held that the FIR should not be quashed at this stage and that a full trial was necessary to determine the culpability of the applicants.
Finding of the Court:
The court referred to relevant case law on the issue of delay in lodging an FIR and held that if the delay is satisfactorily explained, the court should decide the matter on merits without giving much importance to the delay. The court also noted that the FIR contained specific allegations against the applicants that could be established during the trial. The court further held that the trial court has the power to frame additional charges if the evidence discloses more offenses than those for which the crime is registered. The court concluded that the allegations in the FIR required a full trial and rejected the application to quash the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if the delay in lodging an FIR is satisfactorily explained, the court should decide the matter on merits without giving much importance to the delay. The court also held that the trial court has the power to frame additional charges if the evidence discloses more offenses than those for which the crime is registered.
Result: The court rejected the application to quash the FIR and held that a full trial was necessary to determine the culpability of the applicants.
JUDGMENT :
V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
1. Hearing was conducted through Video conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. By filing the present application, the applicants are praying following reliefs:
“(i) allow this application and further be pleased to quash and set aside the F.I.R. registered by the non-applicant no. 1 Police Station Hudkeshwar, Nagpur vide Crime No. 305/2020 dated 10.08.2020 (Annexure-P1), for the offence punishable under Sections 386, 420, 504, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, being an abuse of process of law and in the interest of justice.
(ii) pending hearing and disposal of the present Criminal Application, by appropriate interim order be pleased to grant stay to the further proceedings in Crime no. 305/2020, registered with the non-applicant no. 1 Police Station Hudkeshwar, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 386, 420, 504, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (Annexure-P1) and further be pleased to direct the non-applicant no. 1 Police Station not to take any coercive steps against the applicants during the pendency of the present application.
(iii) to grant ad-interim ex-parte relief in terms of prayer clause (ii) and (iii) above.
(iv) to grant any other relief to which the applicants are found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
4. We have heard Shri Anil Mardikar, the learned Senior Counsel for applicants in extenso. Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is representing the State.
5. According to the learned Senior Counsel, there is a considerable delay in lodging the First Information Report in question. Another limb of his submission is that the First Information Report is not having basic ingredients so far as the offence punishable under Sections 386 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. He, therefore, submits that this is a fit case wherein this Court should invoke its inherent power to quash the First Information Report. It may be observed here that the learned Senior Counsel did not submit any reported case either of this Court or of the Hon’ble Apex Court, to buttress his submissions.
6. The First Information Report in question is dated 10.08.2020 and it is lodged by non-applicant No. 2. There are four applicants in this application. The applicant No. 2 is brother of applicant No. 1 and applicant No. 3 and 4 are, according to the learned Senior Counsel, friends of the applicant No. 1.
7. As per the First Information Report, complainant was having her own courier office at locality called Mahal, Nagpur. Her courier business was doing well. In connection with her profession, various persons used to visit her office. Applicant No. 1-Sahil Samer Khurshid Sayeed also used to visit the office of the complainant in respect of courier service. Therefore, complainant was knowing the applicant No. 1. Thereafter friendship developed in between them. As per the First Information Report, after sometime applicant No. 1 disclosed that he loves the complainant. The applicant No. 1 used to take the complainant for roaming here and there. At this time, when the complainant asked the applicant No. 1 about the marriage, that time he refused for the marriage. Therefore, as per the desire of complainant’s parents, she married with another person. However, even after her marriage the applicant No. 1 used to make phone calls to her and used to disclose that he is still loving her and consequently the complainant could not stay in her matrimonial house and she obtained divorced.
8. The First Information Report further states that in 2013, she and applicant No. 1 purchased one residential apartment in a building known as “Sheela Apartments” situated on Plot No. 302, behind Besa Power House, New Narsala, Manewada, Nagpur, for Rs. 21,00,00
