Format.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1116 OF 2024 VASANT S/O RAMBHAU THORWE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER Mr. S. G. Kawade, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. S. B. Jadhav, APP for Respondent-State. CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J DATE : AUGUST 27, 2026 P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent-State. 2. By the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant seeks quashing and setting aside of Crime No.0030/2024 registered with Police Station Mantha, District Jalna, for the offences punishable under Sections 385 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant has also sought consequential relief in respect of the proceedings arising out of the said crime. 3. The applicant is aged about 55 years and is serving as an Assistant Teacher at Jaibhavani High School, Jaipur, Tq. Mantha, District Jalna. The informant is Shivaji Tryambakrao Thorwe. The allegations in the First Information Report, in substance, are that the applicant contacted the 2026:BHC-AUG:39455-DB Format.odt informant on his mobile phone in connection with the works undertaken through the Gram Panchayat. It is alleged that the applicant demanded money in respect of such works and threatened the informant in case the demand was not complied with. On the basis of the said allegations, Crime No.0030/2024 came to be registered with Police Station Mantha for the offences punishable under Sections 385 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.The applicant has disputed the allegations made in the First Information Report. It is his case that there was political rivalry and previous enmity between the applicant and the informant's family. The applicant states that he was elected as a member of the Gram Panchayat and that the wife of respondent No.2 was the Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat. According to the applicant, he had raised objections regarding the works undertaken by the Gram Panchayat and had approached the concerned authorities seeking enquiry. 4. The applicant has placed on record copies of the complaints/applications filed before the concerned authorities. These documents are collectively marked as Exhibit “A”. The record shows that the applicant had approached authorities including the Divisional Commissioner, District Collector, Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad and Block Development Officer in relation to the works undertaken by the Gram Panchayat and had sought enquiry in respect thereof. According to the Format.odt applicant, because of the complaints made by him against the Sarpanch and Gramsevak, the present FIR has been filed as a counterblast. He has specifically contended that the Sarpanch, who is stated to be the wife of respondent No.2, had misused the power of her office and, therefore, the applicant had made complaints before the Government authorities. It is his contention that the present complaint is false, bogus and fabricated. The applicant has further relied upon the attendance register of the school, which is produced on record and marked as Exhibit “C”. He has contended that the attendance register shows his presence in the school on 09.09.2023. 5. The applicant has also relied upon the certificate issued by the Head Master, Jaibhavani High School, Jaipur, dated 15.02.2024, which is marked as Exhibit “D”. As per the said certificate, the applicant was present in the school on 09.09.2023 from 09.30 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. The copy of the First Information Report bearing Crime No.0030/2024 dated 24.01.2024 is produced on record and marked as Exhibit “B”. The FIR records Sections 385 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code as the offences alleged against the applicant. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that there is considerable delay in lodging the FIR. According to the applicant, the alleged incident occurred in September 2023, whereas the FIR came to be registered on 24.01.2024. It is submitted that the delay of about four months has not been properly explained and that the FIR is an afterthought, Format.odt filed to counter the complaints made by the applicant against the Sarpanch and Gramsevak. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant was present in the school and relies upon the attendance register and the certificate issued by the Head Master in support of his contention. It is submitted that the documentary material placed on record creates a serious doubt regarding the allegations made against the applicant. 6. It is also the contention of the applicant that the FIR does not contain any allegation regarding use of caste-related words and, therefore, according to him, no offence under any such provision is attracted. The applicant further contends that the police authorities did not conduct proper enquiry before registering the crime and that the prosecution has been initiated only on the basis of the informant's statement. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, and submitted that the present case falls within the principles warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction for preventing abuse of the process of law. 7. Learned APP appearing for the respondent-State opposed the application. It is submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are supported by the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that whether the witnesses are interested witnesses or otherwise is a matter which can be considered by the Format.odt Trial Court on appreciation of evidence. 8. The applicant has relied upon the complaints filed by him before various authorities, which are collectively marked as Exhibit “A”. The said complaints may indicate that there was a dispute between the parties in relation to the affairs and works of the Gram Panchayat. However, the mere existence of such previous complaints cannot, by itself, establish that the allegations made in the FIR are false. The applicant has also relied upon the attendance register and the certificate issued by the Head Master. These documents have been placed on record in support of the defence of the applicant. Thus, it becomes the defence of the applicant, which may be allowed to be raised during trial. The effect and evidentiary value of these documents vis-à-vis the allegations made in the FIR and the statements recorded during investigation cannot be conclusively determined in the present proceedings. The applicant has mainly relied upon the delay in lodging the FIR. The record indicates that the FIR was registered on 24.01.2024 in respect of an alleged incident stated to have occurred in September 2023. However, the question as to the effect of such delay and whether the delay has been properly explained or not is a matter which can be considered by the Trial Court on the basis of the evidence before it. 9. The contention that the FIR is a counterblast to the complaints filed by the applicant also involves disputed questions of fact. The previous Format.odt complaints relied upon by the applicant and the allegations made in the FIR will have to be considered in the light of the evidence led by the respective parties. So far as the contention regarding the witnesses is concerned, the allegations in the First Information Report are supported by the statements of the witnesses. Whether these witnesses are interested witnesses or otherwise would be a matter to be decided by the Trial Court only. At this stage, this Court cannot assess the credibility of the witnesses or decide the evidentiary value of their statements. Likewise, this Court cannot, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, undertake a detailed appreciation of the attendance register, Head Master's certificate, previous complaints and other material relied upon by the applicant and record a finding regarding the correctness of the defence version. Such an exercise would amount to conducting a mini-trial. The contention of the applicant that the police did not conduct proper enquiry and that the FIR was registered only on the basis of the informant's statement also cannot, in the facts of the present case, be examined so as to terminate the prosecution when the material collected during investigation includes statements of witnesses supporting the allegations. 10. The applicant's reliance upon the judgment in Bhajan Lal (supra) has been considered. However, on the material placed before this Court, this is not a case where the allegations and the material collected Format.odt during investigation can be said to be such that the continuation of the proceedings would clearly amount to abuse of the process of law. At this stage, this Court is not required to determine whether the prosecution will ultimately succeed or whether the defence of the applicant will be accepted. Those questions are required to be considered by the learned Trial Court after appreciation of the evidence. Thus, merely because there is delay in lodging the FIR, or because the applicant has placed on record previous complaints and documents in support of his defence, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed when the allegations in the FIR are supported by statements of witnesses. In view of the above, this Court finds that the present proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage. The issues raised by the applicant, including the effect of delay, previous complaints, the defence documents and the credibility of the witnesses, are matters for consideration by the learned Trial Court. Suffice it to say that applicant has failed to make out case for quashing of criminal proceedings under principles/guidelines laid down in case of Bhajan lal (Supra) 11. In view of above discussion, the Criminal Application stands dismissed. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) Malani