IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1487 OF 2020
Ankush Dattu Dhore & Ors. …..Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …..Respondents
Mr. Sadashiv Deshmukh i/b Mr. Rakesh Sharad Patil a/w V. V. Tapkir & V. D. Tapkir for the Petitioners.
Mr. Ashish I. Satpute, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Vishal Laxman Kolekar for Respondent No. 2.
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE : 5 th AUGUST 2024.
P.C.:-
1) The present case exhibits total non-application of mind by the Investigating Officer, resulting in innumerable and unfathomable harassment to the Petitioners, citizens of India.
2) Record reveals that, on the basis of a private complaint filed by the Respondent No. 2, the learned Joint Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadgaon Maval, District-Pune passed an Order dated 5th February 2020 under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. directing investigation of the crime under Sections 417, 420, 467, 468, 471, 199, 200, 193(2), 504 & 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C.). Accordingly the Talegaon MIDC Police Station, Pimpri-Chinchwad lodged the present C. R. No. 22 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 420, 467, 468, 471, 191, 200, 504, 506 & 193 read with 34 of I.P.C.
3) While hearing the Petition, the following disturbing features came to our notice.
3.1) The First Information Report (F.I.R.) is a replica of private complaint lodged by the Respondent No. 2. The first line of the F.I.R. on Page No. 15 of the Petition reads as under :
“fQ;kZnh es U;k;ky;kl uezi.ks dGforks rs [kkyhy izek.ks 1) feGdrhps o.kZu
rqdMh iq.ks iksV rqdMh ekoGps lc fjtLVkZj ;kaps gn~nhrhy rlsp ftYgk
ifj’kn iq.ks] iapk;r lferh ekoG ;kaps gn~nhrhy xkao ekSts banksjh] rk- ekoG]
ft- iq.ks ;sFkhy tfeu feGdr v) xV ua 383 ;kalh {ks= 01 gs 55 vkj ;klh
vkdkj 05 : 00 iSls c) xV ua 384 ;kalh 03 gs 92 vkj vf/kd iksV[kjkck
00 gs 44 vkj vls ,dq.k {ks= 04 gs 36 vkj ;klh vkdkj 11 : 55 iSls
2) oj dye 1 ;kr o.kZu dsysyh feGdrh g;k fQ;kZnh ;kaP;k ofMyksikftZr
ekydh gDdkP;k o vktferhl izR;{k rkcs ofgokVhl vkgsr-”
3.2) The last five lines of the F.I.R. on Page No. 16 of the Petition
read as under :
“lnj ?kVuscnnyns[khy fQ;kZnhus iksyhl Lvs’ku ,e-vk;-Mh-lh- rGsxko nkHkkMs
yk vtZ fnyk R;kauhdkgh dkjokbZ dsyh ukgh- rlsp iksyhl vk;qDrky; fiaijh
fpapoM ;kauh ns[khy rdzkjhph n[ky ?ksryh ukgh- Eg.kwu lnj [kVY;kl dkj.k
?kMys o jkstps jkst ?kMr vkgs- 8) vf/kdkj {ks= oj uewn feGdr gh xko
ekSts banwjh ;sFkhy vlwu R;kckcr iksyhl LVs’ku vkach ,e-vk;-Mh-lh rGsxko
nkHkkMs vlwu lnj rdzkjh ckcr [kVyk nk[ky d:u ?ks.ks o U;k; ns.ks gs
izLrqrps U;k;ky;kps vkf/kdkj {ks=kr vkgs- rjh es U;k;ky;kps uez fouarh dh]
1) fQ;kZnh ;kapk iqjkok o ifjfLFkrh y{kkr ?ksrk vkjksih ;kauk QkStnkjh dk;|
kUo;rs dMd ’kklu dj.;kr ;kos fdaok 2) fdzfeuy izksfltj dksM] 1976 ps
dye 156(3) vUo;s rikldkfe oMxko ekoG iksyhl LVs’kuyk vkns’k
ns.;kr ;kos fdaok 3) vkjksih fo:/n izkslsl b’;q dj.;kr ;kos 4) brj ;ksX;
o U;k; gqdqe gks.ksl fouarh 5) t:jr iMY;kl vk.k[khps lk{khnkj ns.;kph
fouarh Ogkoh-”
3.3) It is clear that, the concerned Officer has not even taken pains to record the F.I.R. properly and has just copied the text of Complaint as it is, in the proforma F.I.R.
3.4) At the time of filing of the Final Report under Section 173(II) of Cr.P.C., the Investigating Agency has maintained the following sections in it :
“417, 420, 467, 468, 471, 191, 200, 193, 504 & 506 read with 34 of I.P.C. and 4 & 25 of the Arms Act.”
4) Upon a query by the Court to the learned A.P.P., as to which is the said document to which Section 467 of I.P.C. is applied, we have been pointed out Page No. 305 of the Petition. The said document is an Affidavit filed by the Petitioner No. 2 before the Executive Magistrate, Taluka-Maval, District-Pune.
4.1) There is no allegation against any of the Petitioners that, they forged any document, which purports to be a valuable security or a will or an authority to adopt a son or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon or any other government instrument such as Bank Note, Hundi or Promissory Note and despite the said fact, Section 467 of I.P.C. is maintained in the Final Report by the Investigating Agency.
4.2) According to us, dragging persons in criminal cases implicating them in the offences which are clearly not made out, causes immense mental agony and harassment to the person accused of such an offence and also violates his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
4.3) This is due to the sheer, obliviousness and non-application of mind by the concerned Officer. Section 467 of I.P.C. is the only section applied herein which is punishable with life imprisonment and therefore it changes the total complexion and/or gamut of the allegation against the Petitioners.
5) In view thereof, we deem it appropriate to bring the said fact to the notice of the Joint Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), PimpriChinchwad, Police Commissionerate and direct him to file its reply to the present Petition and explain the aforestated points noted by us.
5.1) We direct the Joint Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) not to delegate his powers to any subordinate Officer/Officers for filing the reply.
5.2) If the Joint Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) finds that, in fact Section 467 of I.P.C. was not to be applied to the present crime, we request him to adopt appropriate remedial measures in that behalf and mention the same in his Affidavit.
5.3) The said Affidavit to be filed within a period of four weeks from today. 6) Stand over to 9th September 2024.
7) Ad-interim relief, if any granted earlier, to continue till then.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (A. S. GADKARI, J.)