Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Bhaskar Madhukarrao Phad and Panaji Rubji Gavit, employees of MSEDCL, filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR No. 127 of 2017 registered at Pashim Deopur Police Station, Dhule, for offences under Sections 323, 324, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The FIR was lodged by respondent No. 2, Deepak Chatur Bhadane, alleging that on 15 November 2017, while he was inquiring about a three-phase electricity connection, petitioner No. 1 Bhaskar became angry, pushed him, and struck him on the head with a Tong (Pakkad), causing a bleeding injury. The incident allegedly occurred in front of the house of one Trimbak Patil. The petitioners contended that prior to this FIR, Bhaskar had already lodged a complaint against Deepak at 22:00 hours on the same day, resulting in the registration of Crime No. 127/2017 for offences under Sections 353, 323, 332, 504, and 506 IPC. They argued that Deepak's FIR was a counter-blast filed after Bhaskar's complaint. The court noted that the incident took place in a public area but no independent witnesses were cited, and the timing of Deepak's FIR (at 22:48 hours) after Bhaskar's complaint suggested it was a retaliatory measure. The court found the allegations inherently improbable and lacking corroboration. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising from it, and made the rule absolute.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Counter-blast FIR - The court examined whether a subsequent FIR filed as a counter-blast to an earlier complaint should be quashed. The court held that when the subsequent FIR lacks independent witnesses and appears inherently improbable, it is liable to be quashed to prevent abuse of process. (Paras 2-4) B) Indian Penal Code - Offences of Hurt, Assault, Criminal Intimidation - Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC - The court considered the allegations of causing hurt with a dangerous weapon (Tong/Pakkad) and criminal intimidation. The court found that the absence of independent witnesses and the timing of the FIR (after the complainant's own FIR) made the allegations improbable. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR registered as a counter-blast to a prior complaint should be quashed when it lacks independent corroboration and appears inherently improbable.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed FIR No. 127/2017 and all proceedings arising from it, and made the rule absolute.
Law Points
- Quashing of FIR
- Counter-blast FIR
- Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC
- Lack of independent witnesses
- Inherent improbability
