37apl977.2019.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 977 OF 20 19 APPLICANT :- Mahadeo Bhimaji Atram, Aged about 42 years, Occu: Business, R/o Ward No.11, Athavadi Bazar, Rajura, Tehsil Rajura, District Chandrapur. ..VERSUS.. NON- APPLICANTS :- 1) The State of Maharashtra, through PSO, Rajura, Tehsil Rajura, District Chandarpur. 2) Aditya s/o Vijay Bhake, Aged about 28 years, Occu: Contractor, Resident of Somnathpura Ward, Somnathpur Square, Rajura, Tehsil Rajura, District Chandrapur. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. C.S. Maskare, counsel h/f Mr. Sanjay Ganesh Karmarkar, counsel for applicant. Mr. K.R.Lule, APP for non-applicant No.1/State. Ms Naina Dhoke, counsel h/f Mr. M.V.Rai, counsel for non- applicant No.2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE , J. DATE : 24 /0 3 /2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. rkn 2026:BHC-NAG:4891-DB 37apl977.2019.odt 2 2. ADMIT. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP for non-applicant No.1 /State and learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2. 3. The present application is preferred by the applicant for quashing of the FIR in connection with Crime No. 81 of 2019, registered with Police Station Rajura, District Chandrapur, for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4. The crime is registered is on the basis of a report lodged by the non-applicant No.2. It is alleged that on allegation on 06/02/2019 at about 9.30 p.m when he was present at Somnathpur Square, the police approached him and inquired about the house of Sinu Atram. He informed to the police officer that he did not know the exact location, but the police took him along with them. At that time, the present applicant came there, assaulted him by holding his collar, slapped him, and also gave a blow of knife on his shoulder, due to which he sustained injuries. On the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime against the present applicant. 5. During the pendency of this application, the chargesheet came to be filed. Despite the order passed by this Court permitting the applicant to amend the application, no steps are taken to carry out the amendment. Even the copy has not been supplied for issuing notice to the other side. The application has been pending since 2019. Therefore, the rkn 37apl977.2019.odt 3 application is proceeded on the basis of available documents on record. 6. On perusal of the recitals of the FIR, it reveals that there are a specific allegations against the present applicant by the informant. Thus, as far as the prima-facie case is concerned, which is apparent from the recitals of the FIR. 7. The learned APP and learned counsel for the complainant, who is present before this Court, have strongly opposed the said application and invited my attention towards the statements of the witnesses, submitting that a prima-facie case is made out against the present applicant. 8. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the entire record, it reveals that a specific role is attributed to the present applicant by the informant as well as the witness by the witness, namely Vimal Devaji Tekam. 9. By applying the parameters laid down in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, which reproduced as under :- (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report rkn 37apl977.2019.odt 4 and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the rkn 37apl977.2019.odt 5 Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 10. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are taken into consideration, a prima-facie case is made out against the present applicant. In view of that, the application deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order. ORDER a] The Criminal Application is rejected. 11. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (URMILA JOSHI PHALKE , J. ) rkn