Advocates:
['A M GEDAM', '', 'CHANDRAKANT D ROHANKAR', 'APP', '', 'SANKET A WALDE', 'PRATIK D LAWANKAR']

Judgment

Judgment

11

apl511.22.odt

apl511.22.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. 511/2022

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 511/2022

Shubham @ Aniket S/o Zanak Gujar

Shubham @ Aniket S/o Zanak Gujar, ,

Aged about 22 years, Occ. Private

Aged about 22 years, Occ. Private

R/o. Ambhora, Tah. & Dist. Gondia

R/o. Ambhora, Tah. & Dist. Gondia

….

…. APPLICANT(S)

APPLICANT(S)

//

// VERSUS //

VERSUS //

1]

1]

State of Maharashtra

State of Maharashtra,,

Through P.S.O., P.S. Jaripatka,

Through P.S.O., P.S. Jaripatka,

Nagpur

Nagpur

2]

2]

Sangita W/o Rajendra Borkar

Sangita W/o Rajendra Borkar, ,

Aged about 38 years, Occ. Household,

Aged about 38 years, Occ. Household,

R/o. Indiranagar, Gali No. 10, Near Shende

R/o. Indiranagar, Gali No. 10, Near Shende

Kirana Store, Jaripatka, Nagpur

Kirana Store, Jaripatka, Nagpur

….

…. NON-APPLICANT(S)

NON-APPLICANT(S)

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

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

Shri A.M. Gedam, Advocate for the Applicant(s)

Shri A.M. Gedam, Advocate for the Applicant(s)

Shri S.S. Doifode, APP

Shri S.S. Doifode, APP for the Non-applicant/State

for the Non-applicant/State

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

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

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

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

APRIL 12

APRIL 12

, 202

, 202

22

ORAL JUDGMENT

ORAL JUDGMENT

: (PER:- AMIT BORKAR, J.)

: (PER:- AMIT BORKAR, J.)

1]

Heard.

ANSARI

ANSARI

Judgment

Judgment

22

apl511.22.odt

apl511.22.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. 350/2021 registered with the Non-Applicant No. 1 – Police Station

for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code.

4]

The First Information Report came to be registered against

the Applicant with the accusations that on 01/05/2021, at about 11 am,

when the Non-Applicant No. 2 and her husband went to work and

subsequently returned to their house, the daughter of the Non-Applicant

No. 2 was not in their house and therefore the Non-Applicant No. 2

searched for her but could not locate her. She therefore called on her

cellphone but she refused the call of the Non-Applicant No. 2.

Therefore, the Non-Applicant No. 2 lodged First Information Report

against the Applicant.

5]

During the pendency of the investigation, the Applicant and

the Non-Applicant No. 2 have mutually resolved their dispute. The

ANSARI

ANSARI

Judgment

Judgment

33

apl511.22.odt

apl511.22.odt

Non-Applicant No. 2 who is present in the Court has filed affidavit

dated 12/04/2022 wherein she has stated the First Information Report

came to be registered against the Applicant due to misunderstanding and

she has no objection if the same is quashed.

6]

Having carefully considered the allegations in the First

Information Report, we are satisfied that the essential ingredients of the

said offences 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 the First Information Report indeed discloses

the ingredients of such offence and the Court can accept the settlement

and quash the First Information Report/Charge-sheet only after the

Court is of the opinion that such an offence is un