Amol Bhaskar Sulakhe v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

1. Admit. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) for quashing of FIR No.291 of 2021 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C.”) lodged by Respondent No.3-Complainant. Brief facts are as under:-

2. The Applicant and Respondent No.3-Complainant belongs to same family. In the year 1952, a partnership firm by the name of M/s.

D. B. Sulake & Sons was established by the grandfather of the Applicant and Respondent No.3-Complainant for carrying out business at Barshi, District Solapur, Maharashtra. After the demise of the grandfather, the business of the firm was conducted by the respective fathers of the Applicant, Respondent No.3 and their nephew. As the time passed by the reins were handed over to the third generation i.e. the Applicant and Respondent No.3-Complainant. Difference of opinion arose between the third generation children which resulted into disputes between the family members.

3. On 5th April 2021, the Applicant along with others lodged a civil suit at Barshi against Respondent No.3-Complainant seeking injunction from disturbing his peaceful possession of certain premises referred to in the said suit. We are informed that there are no orders 2 of 13 passed in the said civil suit.

4. On 24th June 2021, the Applicant made a complaint against Respondent No.3 with the Police Station and an FIR came to be lodged on the said date at 21:33 hours for the offences under Sections 504, 506 and 509 read with Section 34 of the IPC against Respondent No.3. We are informed that the said FIR has not been challenged by Respondent No.3-Complainant.

5. On the very same day i.e. 24th June 2021, the Respondent No.3-Complainant made a complaint with the Police Station against the Applicant and an FIR came to be lodged for offences under Sections 441, 447, 448, 504 and 506 of the IPC against the Applicant. The said FIR was lodged at 23:01 hours i.e. after around 1½ hours of the Applicant having made complaint against Respondent No.3 and same is the subject matter of the present proceedings.

6. It is also important to note that from 24th March 2021 to 1st April 2021, the Applicant had made various complaints in writing against Respondent No.3 with Barshi Police Station narrating the disturbance created by Respondent No.3 informant and seeking security against the same. 3 of 13

7. Pursuant to the FIR lodged by Respondent No.3-Complainant against the Applicant, Respondent No.2 also recorded statements of various people and charge-sheet came to be lodged on 18th November 2021 against the Applicant for the offences under Sections 441, 447, 448, 504, 506 of the IPC. It is on this backdrop that the Applicant is before us today seeking quashing of the FIR dated 24th June 2021.

8. The Applicant submits that on a bare perusal of the FIR, it is cleared that none of the ingredients required to be satisfied for the aforesaid offences can be said to have been fulfilled and, therefore, relegating the Applicant for trial would be abuse of process of law. The Applicant further submitted that the disputes between Respondent No.3- Complainant and the Applicant are in the nature of civil disputes and, therefore, same cannot be coloured as criminal by taking recourse to the provisions of the IPC and Cr.P.C. The Applicant further submitted that there is a delay in lodging the FIR which has not been explained and, therefore, even on this count, the FIR is required to be quashed. The Applicant has relied upon various decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court in support of his submissions.

9. Per contra, Respondent No.3 submits that on a bare perusal of the FIR and the charge-sheet, an offence is made out under the aforesaid Sections and, therefore, the Applicant should be directed to face the 4 of 13 trial. The Respondent further submitted that there are no averments made by the Applicant as to in what capacity, he is in possession of the premises which are referred to in the charge-sheet. The Respondent No.3, therefore, submitted that this is not a case where this Court should exercise its jurisdiction to quash the FIR. The Respondent No.1-State has adopted and supported the submissions made by Respondent No.3.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the Applicant and the Respondents and with their assistance have perused the documents annexed to the petition and tendered during the course of the hearing.

11. To adjudicate the present proceedings, it is necessary to narrate what has been stated in the FIR dated 24th June 2021 lodged at 23:01 hours against the Applicant on a complaint made by Respondent No.3.

12. In the impugned FIR, the complainant has given a brief history about the formation of partnership by his grandfather and subsequently by his father and uncles. Thereafter the demise of various members of the family is described. It is stated that since the Applicant did not agree to enter the complainant’s name in the firm by succession, the relations between them spoiled from April 2020. The complainant further has stated that the Applicant has forcibly encroached upon the two rooms above the shop owned by complainant and has stored material of the 5 of 13 shop. It is further stated in the FIR that inspite of his request not to enter the said rooms, he repeatedly encroached upon the same and stored the material without the complainant’s permission and now he has locked the said rooms. It is stated that the Applicant has also stored the material in front of the residential house of the complainant’s cousin and inspite of the request made same has not been removed. Therefore, the Respondent and his cousin have approached the Police Station to lodge complaint against the Applicant. It is further stated that from 15th April 2021, till date of lodging the present complaint, the Applicant has unauthorizedly and forcibly entered and encroached upon two rooms belonging to the complainant and his cousin without their permission and stored material and has locked the said rooms which are owned by the complainant and his cousin. The complainant has further stated in the FIR that the Applicant is threatening and abusing and, therefore, a complaint is made against the Applicant.

13. It is on the basis of above FIR, we are called upon to adjudicate the present proceedings for quashing the same. Before we proceed to ascertain whether the ingredients of the Sections which are invoked in the FIR are satisfied or not, it is necessary for us to first decide whether this Court in exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can entertain the present application. In this connection, 6 of 13 the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court from time to time for exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are as under:- “(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in 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 the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.

(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.