Bombay High Court
Sunil S/O Babusingh Daberao And Another vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Police ... on 18 November, 2021
Author: M. S. Sonak
Bench: M. S. Sonak, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
1 32-apl-367-21j.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 367 OF 2021
1. Sunil S/o. Babusingh Daberao,
Aged about 51 years, Occ. Service,
2. Sharda W/o. Sunil Daberao,
Aged about 45 years, Occ. Teacher,
Both R/o. Vrundawan Nagar,
Murtizapur, Tah. Murtizapur,
District Akola. . . . APPLICANTS
...V E R S U S..
1. State of Maharashtra through
Police Station Officer,
Police Station Murtizapur,
District- Akola.
2. Rajesh S/o. Wasudevrao Bhugul,
Aged about 45 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Ganesh Nagar, Murtizapur,
Tah. Murtizapur, Dist. Akola. . . . NON-APPLICANTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A. M. Tirukh, Advocate for applicants.
Shri S. S. Doifode, A.P.P. for non-applicant no. 1/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- M. S. SONAK AND
PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
DATED:- 18.11.2021
JUDGMENT (PER: M. S. SONAK, J.):-
1. Heard Shri A. M. Tirukh, learned counsel for the applicants, and Shri S. S. Doifode, learned A.P.P. for non-applicant no. ::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2021 22:20:48 :::
2 32-apl-367-21j.odt 1/State. The non-applicant no. 2 though served but, neither present nor represented.
2. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith.
3. This is an application seeking quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) dated 04.02.2021 vide Crime No. 49/2021 alleging commission of an offense under Section 363 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the applicants. This FIR is registered at Police Station Murtizapur, Dist. Akola based on the complaint lodged by the non-applicant no. 2.
4. The FIR alleges the commission of the aforesaid offense by Suyash Daberao, son of the two applicants as well as the two applicants before us. This application is however taken out by only the two applicants i.e. the parents of said Suyash.
5. The complaint/FIR was lodged by the non-applicant no. 2, who is the father of the victim girl alleging that Suyash, who is a friend of his victim daughter, committed sexual assault on her after kidnapping her. The allegations are almost entirely against Suyash i.e. son of the present applicants and there are no serious allegations against the present applicants. Only towards the conclusion of the ::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2021 22:20:48 ::: 3 32-apl-367-21j.odt complaint, there is a stray sentence that the applicants along with their son Suyash have enticed the victim girl and thereby kidnapped her.
6. On behalf of the non-applicant no. 1/State, the reply has been filed, in which, it is stated that after the registration of the FIR, the Investigating Agency recorded the statement of the complainant (non-applicant no. 2), prepared spot panchnama, and further recorded the statement of the victim girl under Section 161 as well as Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The affidavit states that statement of the victim girl does not support the prosecution case.
7. According to us, the main allegations are against Suyash, the son of the applicants. The complaint is lodged against Suyash, who is alleged to have enticed, kidnapped, and committed sexual assault on the non-applicant no. 2's daughter. The daughter, in her statement, has not supported this version but, even if this aspect is excluded and the allegations in the FIR are taken at their face value, we feel that this is an attempt to unnecessarily rope in the present applicants based on a very stray and casual statement that the applicants had also enticed the daughter along with Suyash. In the complaint, which is in Marathi, the allegations are that the applicants instigated the victim girl and then kidnapped her. Based on such a vague statement, bereft of any particulars whatsoever, we feel that continuance of prosecution against ::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2021 22:20:48 ::: 4 32-apl-367-21j.odt the present applicants, who are stated to be Government Servants will amount to an abuse of process. This would be the position even if we exclude from consideration the statement in the reply filed by the State that the allegedly kidnapped daughter is denying this version of the non-applicant no.2-complainant and thereby not supporting the prosecution version.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, we quash the impugned FIR dated 04.02.2021 vide Crime No. 49/2021 registered at Police Station Murtizapur, Dist. Akola qua the present applicants. We clarify that the FIR is not quashed qua Suyash, who in any case, is not the applicant before us in this proceeding.
9. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
(PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.) (M. S. SONAK, J.)
RR Jaiswal
::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2021 22:20:48 :::