NAGORAO S/O RAMCHANDRA KHANDERAO AND 2 OTHERS v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. PSO POLICE STATION SHEGAON, TQ. SHEGAON, DIST. BULDHANA AND ANOTHER
APL/887/2021 · 2025-04-16
Shri Anil S Kilor, Shri Pravin S Patil
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 49494 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 49494 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
5 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.887 OF 2021 NAGORAO S/O RAMCHANDRA KHANDERAO AND 2 OTHERS VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. PSO POLICE STATION SHEGAON, TQ. SHEGAON, DIST. BULDHANA AND ANOTHER ______________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.D. Chopade, Advocate for the applicant/s Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for the non-applicant/State ------------------------------- CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 16 th APRIL, 2025
1. Heard. 2. The applicants were chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506 and Section 34 of the IPC. The complaint was lodged on 30.08.2018 in relation to the incident dated 29.08.2018. The narration of the incident in the report is reproduced herein under in vernacular. The same reads thus: ^^ --- fnukad 29-08-2018 jksth lka;dkGh 6@00 ok- ps njE;ku xkokrhy xksBuktoG ukxksjko jkepanz [kaMsjko o R;kaph eqys 1- izfo.k ukxksjko [kaMsjko] 2- vfouk’k ukxksjko [kaMsjko vls gtj vlrkauk eh R;kauk ojhy ?kVus ckcr fopkj.kk dsyh vlrk R;kauh eyk fNukyP;k] HkkslMhP;k] eknjpksnk] rq TkkLRk ektyk v’kh v’yhy f’kohxkG dsyh o rqyk dqUgkMhus [kYykl d:u Vkdq v’kh ftos ekj.;kph /kedh fnyh- R;kosGh rsFks xkokrhy ‘kgknso lq;ZHkku nkaMxs o iznhi fo”.kq igqjdj ;kauh vkeps HkkaM.k lksMfoys- Rkjh R;kaps iklwu ek>s ftohrkyk /kksdk fu.kkZ.k >kyk vkgs- rjh R;kapsoj dkjokbZ Ogkoh- ---**
3. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that a false complaint is made with an oblique motive. He submits that the words used in the quarrel maybe abusive but it cannot be considered as obscene words to attract nd.thawre
5 2 Section 294 of the IPC. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the complaint is false for the reason that there is a dispute between the applicants and informant and further this is the second complaint made against the applicants. 4. It is further pointed out that on 25.08.2018, the first complaint was made, however, there is no mention of the incident dated 21.08.2018, of which the reference can be seen in the complaint dated 30.08.2018. He therefore, submits that as the complaint is vexatious, this is a fit case for quashing the charge-sheet. 5.
On the other hand, the learned APP strongly opposed the application and submits that the words uttered by the applicants during the quarrel are nothing short of obscene words and therefore, Section 294 of the IPC would attract in the present case. He further submits that the allegations made in the FIR, constitute the offence as alleged. This Court may not consider the prayer of the applicants for quashing the charge-sheet. 6. In light of the rival submissions, we have perused the charge-sheet and from the same, it is evident that there are witnesses to the incident. The narration made in the complaint dated 29.08.2018, which is reproduced herein above, prima facie shows that Section 294 of the IPC would attract, as the words used while abusing the informant were obscene. nd.thawre
5 3
7. Furthermore, the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that there is no mention of incident dated 21.08.2018 in the complaint dated 25.08.2018 cannot be accepted for the reason that there is mention of the said incident, however, while lodging the complaint on 25.08.2018 the date of incident was not mentioned. No doubt while recording NC Report, the date of occurrence is shown as 09.08.2018. However, the allegation made in the said complaint matches with the incident dated 21.08.2018. Hence, at this stage, it is not sufficient to say that the complaint is false one. 8. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that there are independent witnesses to the incident, namely Shahadeo Suryabhan Dandge and Sadanand Sakharam Suradkar. 9. Thus, considering the statements of the witnesses, we do not find present case to be fit for quashing the charge- sheet. Accordingly, the application is rejected. (PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) nd.thawre