Advocates:
['ATHARVA S MANOHAR', 'APP', '', 'TEJAS DESHPANDE']

Judgment

Judgment

11

apl606.22.odt

apl606.22.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 606/2022

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 606/2022

Amit S/o Gajanan Paunikar

Amit S/o Gajanan Paunikar, ,

Aged about 34 years, Occ. Service,

Aged about 34 years, Occ. Service,

R/o. Shiv Residency, Gorewada Road,

R/o. Shiv Residency, Gorewada Road,

Nagpur

Nagpur

….

…. APPLICANT(S)

APPLICANT(S)

//

// VERSUS //

VERSUS //

1]

1]

State of Maharashtra

State of Maharashtra,,

Through Police Station Officer,

Through Police Station Officer,

Police Station Badnera, District Amravati

Police Station Badnera, District Amravati

2]

2]

Kamaljitsingh S/o Triloksingh Dhaliwal

Kamaljitsingh S/o Triloksingh Dhaliwal, ,

Aged about 40 years, Occ. Business,

Aged about 40 years, Occ. Business,

R/o. Navi Vasti, Malipura, Amravati

R/o. Navi Vasti, Malipura, Amravati

….

…. NON-APPLICANT(S)

NON-APPLICANT(S)

*******************************************************************

*******************************************************************

Shri A.S. Manohar, Advocate for the Applicant(s)

Shri A.S. Manohar, Advocate for the Applicant(s)

Shri M.K. Pathan, APP

Shri M.K. Pathan, APP for the Non-applicant/State

for the Non-applicant/State

Shri T.Deshpande, Advocate for the Non-Applicant No. 2

Shri T.Deshpande, Advocate for the Non-Applicant No. 2

*******************************************************************

*******************************************************************

CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE & AMIT BORKAR, JJ.

CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE & AMIT BORKAR, JJ.

APRIL 29

APRIL 29

, 202

, 202

22

ORAL JUDGMENT

ORAL JUDGMENT

: (PER:- AMIT BORKAR, J.)

: (PER:- AMIT BORKAR, J.)

1]

Heard.

ANSARI

ANSARI

Judgment

Judgment

22

apl606.22.odt

apl606.22.odt

2]

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3]

By this Application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the Applicant is challenging registration of the F.I.R.

No. 176/2020 registered with the Non-Applicant No. 1 – Police Station

for the offences punishable under Sections 279 & 337 of the Indian

Penal Code, consequent Charge-sheet No.80/2020 and criminal

proceedings bearing Summary Criminal Case No. 2783/2020 pending

before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 10,

Amravati.

4]

The First Information Report came to be registered against

the Applicant with the accusations that the Applicant dashed the

motorcycle of the Non-Applicant No. 2. The Investigating Officer after

completion of the investigation filed Charge-sheet against the Applicant.

During the pendency of proceedings, the Applicant and the Non-

Applicant No. 2 have mutually resolved their dispute. The Applicant has

therefore challenged the registration of the First Information Report,

ANSARI

ANSARI

Judgment

Judgment

33

apl606.22.odt

apl606.22.odt

Charge-sheet and the criminal proceedings by filing the present

Application.

5]

The Non-Applicant No. 2 is present in the Court and stated

that he has no objection for quashing the First Information Report,

Charge-sheet and the criminal proceedings against the Applicant.

6]

Having carefully considered the allegations in the First

Information Report and the material produced in the form of Charge-

sheet, we are satisfied that the essential ingredients of the said offences

against the Applicant are not fulfilled. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex

Court in the case of Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab & anr.

reported in (2014) AIR SCW 2065 makes it clear that the Court cannot

declare to quash the First Information Report merely because the First

Information Report incorporates a particular provision which is a serious

offence or offence against society. The Court has to make an endeavour

to find out whether the information in