2024:BHC-AS:16354-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.651 OF 2021 Amol Bhaskar Sulakhe, Age 62 years, Indian Inhabitant, residing at 422/2A, Sulakhe Bungalow Karmveer Housing Society, Alipur Road, Barshi, District Solapur, Maharashtra-413401. ...Applicant Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra, through Public Prosecutor, Bombay High Court, Fort, Mumbai-400 001.

2. Senior Inspector of Police, Barshi Police Station, Barshi, District Solapur, Maharashtra.

3. Chirantan Dinkar Sulakhe, Age 67 years, Indian inhabitant, residing at 3252/53, Cloth Market, Barshi, Dist. Solapur, Maharashtra. ...Respondents __________

Mr. Aditya Ajgaonkar a/w. Ms. Rupal Srimal i/b. Mr. H. M. Inamdar for the Applicant.

Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2-State.

Mr. Sagar Kursija for Respondent No.3.

__________

CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR, JITENDRA JAIN, J.J.

DATED : 1st April 2024.

JUDGMENT :- (Per Jitendra Jain, J.)

1. Admit. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) for quashing of FIR No.291 of 2021 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C.”)

lodged by Respondent No.3-Complainant.

Brief facts are as under:-

2. The Applicant and Respondent No.3-Complainant belongs to same family. In the year 1952, a partnership firm by the name of M/s. D. B. Sulake & Sons was established by the grandfather of the Applicant and Respondent No.3-Complainant for carrying out business at Barshi, District Solapur, Maharashtra. After the demise of the grandfather, the business of the firm was conducted by the respective fathers of the Applicant, Respondent No.3 and their nephew. As the time passed by the reins were handed over to the third generation i.e. the Applicant and Respondent No.3-Complainant. Difference of opinion arose between the third generation children which resulted into disputes between the family members.

3. On 5th April 2021, the Applicant along with others lodged a civil suit at Barshi against Respondent No.3-Complainant seeking injunction from disturbing his peaceful possession of certain premises referred to in the said suit. We are informed that there are no orders passed in the said civil suit.

4. On 24th June 2021, the Applicant made a complaint against Respondent No.3 with the Police Station and an FIR came to be lodged on the said date at 21:33 hours for the offences under Sections 504, 506 and 509 read with Section 34 of the IPC against Respondent No.3. We are informed that the said FIR has not been challenged by Respondent No.3-Complainant.

5. On the very same day i.e. 24th June 2021, the Respondent No.3-Complainant made a complaint with the Police Station against the Applicant and an FIR came to be lodged for offences under Sections 441, 447, 448, 504 and 506 of the IPC against the Applicant. The said FIR was lodged at 23:01 hours i.e. after around 1½ hours of the Applicant having made complaint against Respondent No.3 and same is the subject matter of the present proceedings.

6. It is also important to note that from 24th March 2021 to 1st April 2021, the Applicant had made various complaints in writing against Respondent No.3 with Barshi Police Station narrating the disturbance created by Respondent No.3 informant and seeking security against the same.

7. Pursuant to the FIR lodged by Respondent No.3-Complainant against the Applicant, Respondent No.2 also recorded statements of various people and charge-sheet came to be lodged on 18th November 2021 against the Applicant for the offences under Sections 441, 447, 448, 504, 506 of the IPC. It is on this backdrop that the Applicant is before us today seeking quashing of the FIR dated 24th June 2021.

8. The Applicant submits that on a bare perusal of the FIR, it is cleared that none of the ingredients required to be satisfied for the aforesaid offences can be said to have been fulfilled and, therefore, relegating the Applicant for trial would be abuse of process of law. The Applic