Case Note & Summary
The present matter arises from a Criminal Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench. The petitioners, three police officers (including a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police), sought quashing of FIR C.R. No. 338/2012 registered at Chalisgaon Police Station for offences under Sections 166, 167, 201, 217, 218, 219 of the Indian Penal Code, and the consequent order dated 06.04.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chalisgaon, rejecting the ‘B’ Summary Report and issuing process against them for offences punishable under Sections 166, 167, 218, 219 read with Section 34 IPC. Respondent No.2, the original complainant, had filed a private complaint alleging that the petitioners, while investigating an earlier theft case (Crime No.125/2008 under Section 380 IPC), had failed to properly register and investigate the matter. The background reveals a complex set of facts: in 2008, a theft complaint was filed by respondent No.2 regarding stolen mobiles; the investigation culminated in an ‘A’ summary report on 30.09.2008, stating the accused were untraceable. Subsequently, in July 2009, a dispute arose between a contractor and a local doctor, leading to the registration of FIR C.R. No.145/2009 on 16.07.2009 against the then Additional Superintendent of Police (Shri Lohar) for offences including kidnapping and extortion. Petitioner No.1, as the Police Station Officer, registered that FIR. The petitioners alleged that Shri Lohar, aggrieved by this, initiated malafide actions by directing an inquiry into the 2008 theft case, obtaining an antedated complaint from respondent No.2, and orchestrating the private complaint that led to the impugned FIR in 2012. Petitioners further contended that the complaint was a counterblast and abuse of process, especially since the Public Prosecutor opined against prosecution and the investigating officer filed a ‘B’ summary report, yet the Magistrate issued process. The petition also highlighted disciplinary actions against the petitioners and the pendency of the trial against Shri Lohar, in which petitioner No.1 is a witness. The judgment excerpt provided does not contain the Court’s analysis, reasoning, or final decision; it encompasses only the preliminary facts and the prayers (Paras 1-12). Consequently, the outcome of the petition and the ratio decidendi are not available from the text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR No.338/2012 and subsequent criminal proceedings against the petitioners for offences under Sections 166, 167, 218, 219 read with 34 IPC should be quashed on grounds of malafide, abuse of process, and procedural irregularities?
Law Points
- quashing of FIR
- section 482 CrPC
- Article 226
- abuse of process
- malafide
- summary report
- issue of process
- Section 156(3) CrPC
- Section 173 CrPC
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (03) 73
Criminal Writ Petition No.818 of 2016
Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Senior counsel i/b. Mr. V.R. Dhorde, Mr. R.S. Deshmukh, Mr. M.M. Nerlikar
Jagdeo s/o Mahadeo Akhare, Deelip s/o Murlidhar Patil, Kailas s/o Umraosing Chauhan
The State of Maharashtra, Sameer s/o Ramesh Takte
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition before High Court seeking quashing of FIR and criminal proceedings on grounds of malafide and abuse of process.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (police officers) sought quashing of FIR C.R. No.338/2012 and the order dated 06.04.2016 issuing process against them for offences under IPC.
Filing Reason
Petitioners alleged that the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings were initiated malafidely at the behest of a senior police officer (Additional S.P. Shri Lohar) against whom petitioner no.1 had registered an earlier FIR, and thus amounted to abuse of process of law.
Previous Decisions
Earlier, the JMFC had ordered investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC on private complaint, leading to registration of FIR. Investigating officer filed 'B' summary report, but JMFC rejected it and issued process, which is now challenged.
Issues
Whether the FIR and criminal proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC and Article 226 for being malafide and abuse of process?
Whether the order issuing process is sustainable when the investigating officer had recommended closure by filing 'B' summary report?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners contended that the private complaint and resultant FIR were malafide and a counterblast to the earlier FIR registered by petitioner no.1 against the Additional S.P., and that the entire criminal proceedings were an abuse of process and legally untenable.
Judgment Excerpts
This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code is filed with the following prayers: B) Quash and set aside the F.I.R. bearing C.R.No.338/2012 ...
It is the case of the petitioners that the Additional S.P. Shri. Lohar was enraged with the petitioner no.1, who registered the offence against him due to the complaint of Dr.Mahajan and his son and the consequences were immediate.
the learned Magistrate passed the order directing investigation under Section 156 [3] of Criminal Procedure Code.
Procedural History
A theft complaint was filed in 2008, leading to 'A' summary report. In 2009, a separate FIR was registered against a senior police officer by petitioner no.1. Subsequently, an application was made to reopen the 2008 theft case; an enquiry was directed by the senior officer. In 2012, a private complaint was filed against the petitioners alleging dereliction in the 2008 case; the Magistrate ordered investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, leading to registration of FIR in 2012. The investigating officer filed 'B' summary, but the Magistrate rejected it and issued process against the petitioners on 06.04.2016, which is now challenged before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 166, 167, 201, 217, 218, 219, 34, 196, 380, 347, 364A, 385, 342, 346, 348, 504, 506, 411
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 156(3), 173(f), 482
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979: 10, 17
