0

The Gujarat High Court concludes that the impugned FIR is an abuse of process and an attempt to harass the applicant. Therefore, the court exercises its powers and quashes the FIR and all subsequent proceedings.

Case-  Shailesh Kalidas Bharwad vs State Of Gujarat (R/CR.MA/15849/2018 )
Decided on: 27th June 2023

CORAM: HON’BLE Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt
Introduction

This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash and set aside an FIR registered with the Ramol Police Station in Ahmedabad. The FIR accuses the applicant of offences under Sections 323, 294(b), 506(2), and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act.

Facts of the Case

The dispute arose between the applicant and the neighbour, respondent No. 2, over a road adjacent to their houses. On September 11, 2016, the applicant allegedly confronted respondent No. 2 and verbally abused and physically assaulted him. Two unknown individuals accompanying the applicant also attacked respondent no.2. The applicant and the two unidentified persons fled the scene when respondent no.2 began shouting. Respondent No. 2’s friend took him to the hospital for treatment, and the impugned FIR was subsequently filed.

The applicant argues that the FIR is filed with malicious intent, as it stems from a civil dispute between the applicant and Lalbhai Revabbhai Bharwad, the cousin brother of the complainant in this case. The civil suit related to the same argument was dismissed for want of prosecution. The applicant contends that the present complaint is an abuse of process and an attempt to pressurise and harass the applicant.

The learned advocate for the applicant relies on witness statements indicating that these witnesses arrived at the scene after the incident and did not witness it themselves. Based on this, the applicant argues that the complainant filed the complaint to give a criminal colour to the civil dispute. Therefore, the court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the FIR.

On the other hand, the learned advocate for the respondent-state argues that the allegations in the FIR, if taken at face value, constitute offences under Sections 323, 294(b), and 506(2) of the IPC. Since the chargesheet has already been filed, the respondent contends it is inappropriate to interfere at this stage.

Judgement

After considering the arguments and examining the material on record, the court finds that the incident described in the FIR does not appear to constitute any offence and lacks credibility. The court observes that multiple complaints have been filed against the applicant, and those complainants are related to Lalbhai Revabbhai Bharwad. The court also refers to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal case, which provides guidelines for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. The court concludes that the impugned FIR is an abuse of process and an attempt to harass the applicant. Therefore, the court exercises its powers and quashes the FIR and all subsequent proceedings.

In summary, the court allows the application and quashes the FIR registered against the applicant, along with all consequential proceedings.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has over 20 years of experience in various sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Aadit Shah

Click Here to View Judgement

0

EXAMINING INTERCONNECTED LEGAL CASES: COMMON PARTIES, SHARED FACTS, AND DIVERGING OUTCOMES:BOMBAY HIGH COURT

INTRODUCTION

The High Court of Bombay: Aurangabad Bench passed a judgement on 06 June 2023. In the case of KAILASH BABURAO MAIND Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.266 OF 2022 which was passed by a division bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE V. V. KANKANWADI and HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, the court addressed a series of petitions related to a dispute over a property located in Shirdi, Maharashtra. The judgment provides an overview of the case and examines the arguments presented by the involved parties.

FACTS

The judgment begins by highlighting that all the petitions are between the same parties and stem from the same set of facts. However, the court notes that the relief sought in Writ Petition No.420 of 2023 has been withdrawn by the petitioners’ counsel due to the disinclination of the court to grant the requested relief. As a result, Writ Petition No.420 of 2023 is disposed of as withdrawn.

LAWS INVOLVED:

Remaining Matters

The judgment then focuses on three other related matters. Writ Petition No.266 of 2022 was filed by the original informant, who had lodged a FIR (First Information Report) with the Shirdi Police Station, seeking the transfer of the investigation to another agency and the addition of certain sections of the Indian Penal Code to the FIR. Criminal Application No.879 of 2023 was filed by the original informant, requesting permission to submit certain documents as evidence. Additionally, Criminal Application No.4436 of 2022 was filed by the original accused persons, seeking the quashing of the FIR lodged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.266 of 2022.

ARGUMENTS PRESENTED

During the hearing, several advocates presented their arguments before the court. The Senior Counsel representing the original informant contended that the property in question was purchased by the petitioner and his wife. He alleged that the accused had trespassed onto their property, demolished a wall, and stolen valuable articles. The informant also raised concerns about the police’s handling of the case, alleging that they had not properly investigated the matter and were protecting the accused.

On the other hand, the Senior Counsel representing the original accused argued that the informant’s wife had sold the property to the accused and that, as the owners, they could not be accused of theft or trespassing. They further contended that the civil court had already addressed the matter and granted temporary injunctions in favour of the accused. They also highlighted a potential domestic dispute between one of the accused and a relative of the informant.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

The court carefully examined the facts and arguments presented by both sides. It noted that the sale-deed clearly indicated that a portion of the property had been sold to the accused, and possession had been transferred accordingly. The court also mentioned that the informant had not provided any evidence to refute the sale-deed or support his claims regarding the remaining property.

Additionally, the court observed discrepancies regarding the informant’s wife’s involvement in the civil suit and the authenticity of her signatures on relevant documents. It considered the possibility of a false case being registered and emphasized that it would be unjust to subject the accused to a trial based on questionable grounds.

CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis of the presented facts and arguments, the court found that the sale of the property to the accused had taken place and possession had been transferred accordingly. It further noted that the informant had failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims. As a result, the court dismissed the writ petition filed by the informant and granted the request for quashing the FIR lodged against the accused.

The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of thoroughly examining the evidence and allegations presented in legal proceedings. It highlights the need for substantial proof to support claims and the potential consequences of filing false cases. The judgment also emphasizes the role of the court in ensuring fair and just outcomes in legal disputes.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VETHIKA D PORWAL, BMS COLLEGE OF LAW

Click here to view judgment

0

Petitioner seeking regular bail in the criminal petition filed in Andhra Pradesh High Court.

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

NAKKAMADHU @ POTTI vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

BENCH – HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3491 of 2023

DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 25 MAY 2023

FACTS

This Criminal Petition, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner, seeking regular bail, in Mummidivaram Police Station, B R Ambedkar Konaseema District.

A case has been registered against the Petitioner for the offence punishable under section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

On credible information received on 05.03.2023 at 02.30 p.m., Sub- Inspector of Police, Mummidivaram Police Station, along with his staff and mediators while conducted a raid at Annampaly Old Aqueduct, Annampally Village of Mummidivaram Mandal, where they found the petitioner/Accused No.1 in possession of 23.950 Kgs of Ganja. The material was seized under the cover of a mediators report and accused were remanded to judicial custody.

The relevant provisions followed in this case are as follows: –

Section 437 of Criminal Procedure Code

It deals with the powers of the trial court and of the Magistrate to whom the offender is produced by the police or the accused surrenders or appears, to grant or refuse bail to person accused of, or suspected of the commission of any non-bailable offence.

Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code

Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.

(1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct-

(a) that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in subsection (3) of section 437, may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that sub-section;

(b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing an person on bail be set aside or modified: Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session or which, though not so triable, is punishable with imprisonment for life, give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor unless it is, for reasons to be recorded in writing, of opinion that it is not practicable to give such notice.

(2) A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody.

JUDGEMENT

In this case, the court was inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on the following terms and conditions, dated 20.4.2023.

(i) The Petitioner shall be released on executing a personal bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mummidivaram.

(ii) On release, the Petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, once in a week i.e., on every Friday between 10.00 a.m. and 05.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet.

(iii) Under no circumstances the Petitioner should threaten the witnesses directly or indirectly; any such attempt to do so will be interpreted as an attempt to influence the witnesses. The Petitioner also must not tamper with the evidence and must assist the inquiry.

It is made clear that the Petitioner shall scrupulously comply with the above conditions and breach of any of the above conditions will be viewed seriously and prosecution is at liberty to move an application for cancellation of the bail. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition was allowed.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN 

Click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”