2015 ALL MR (Cri) 1806
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

S. S. SHINDE AND A. I. S. CHEEMA, JJ.

Smt. Smita @ Sunita Ashok Hulegiri (Hulgunde) Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Criminal Application No.3310 of 2014

5th November, 2014.

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. R.G. HANGE
Respondent Counsel: Mr. V.D. GODBHARALE, Mr. G.L. AWALE

Criminal P.C. (1973), S.482 - Quashing of proceedings - Prayer for - Allegation that prosecutrix, aged about 17 years, was eloped/kidnapped by applicant along with other accused - FIR and incriminating statements of witnesses did not implicate applicant for active participation in alleged offence - Overt act attributed to applicant was similar like co-accused whose application for quashing of charge sheet had already been allowed - Held, on same set of material against co-accused, criminal proceeding against applicant quashed and set aside. (Paras 4, 5)

Cases Cited:
Bharat Karbhari Vitkar & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., Cri.Appl.5886/2013, Dt.27.03.2014 [Para 4]


JUDGMENT

S. S. SHINDE, J. :- This Criminal Application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code is filed praying for quashing and setting aside the Charge sheet in Sessions Case No.47/2013 pending on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga, District Latur, pursuant to crime No.46 of 2013 registered with Nilanga Police Station, District Latur, for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366 and 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. At the outset learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that, in all there are 6 accused persons including the present applicant herein against whom the First Information Report was registered on 25.04.2013 by the respondent complainant. It is submitted that, out of 6 accused, two co-accused persons namely Bharat Karbhari Vitkar and Anjali Bharat Vitkar have filed Criminal Application No.5886/2013 before this Court for quashing and setting aside the charge sheet in Regular Criminal Case No.160/2013 and said Criminal Application is allowed by this Court vide order dated 27.03.2014. He further submits that, overt act attributed to the present applicant is similar like applicants in Criminal Application No.5886/2013. The learned counsel invited our attention to the averments made in the application, grounds taken in the application and submits that, application deserves to be allowed.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor invited our attention to the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1 and submits that, application may be rejected.

4. We have given careful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and with their able assistance, we have perused the grounds taken in the application, annexure thereto, reply filed by respondent State and the order passed by this Court in Criminal Application No.5886/2013 on 27.03.2014. We have carefully perused the allegations in the First Information Report and also the statements of the witnesses. We are convinced that, on the same set of allegations - material against the co-accused namely Bharat Karbhari Vitkar and Anjali Bharat Vitkar, this Court allowed their application. The order passed by this Court in Criminal Application No.5886/2013 [Bharat Karbhari Vitkar & another V/s. The State of Maharashtra & another] dated 27th March, 2014, reads thus:

"1] Heard.

2] Smt. Mangal Jadhav lodged First Information Report on 25.4.2013 alleging that her daughter, aged around 17 years, was eloped/kidnapped on 8.4.2013. The applicant Bharat and his wife are referred in the First Information Report to be abettors and facilitators for the elopement for the purpose of ensuring marriage of said victim with brother Shankar of applicant-Bharat.

3] We have perused the First Information Report of Smt. Mangal and incriminating statements of Shrimant Timma Suryawanshi, Lilabai Bapurao Manjule, Bapurao Timma Manjule, Sunil Bapurao Manjule, Tanaji Bapurao Manjule, Balaji Bapurao Manjule, Timmappa Bhimrao Bandgar, Neha Shankar Vitkar and Bharatbai Sitaram Gholap. Cumulative effect of the statements, either singly or collectively, do not implicate the applicants for active participation and eloping/kidnapping the prosecutrix on 8.4.2013. Added to it is, the service record produced by Shri Hange. Applicant-Bharat was on duty, which has been even certified by his superiors.

4] Taking conspectus of above facts, the criminal prosecution vide Criminal Case No.160 of 2013 qua the applicants Bharat and Anjali is quashed and set aside.

5. In our view, for the same reasons, which are assigned in the order reproduced herein above, the present Criminal Application deserves to be allowed accordingly. The further proceedings in Sessions Case No.47/2013 pending on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga, District Latur, based upon Crime No.46/2013 registered with Nilanga Police Station, District Latur, for the offence punishabe under Sections 363, 366 and 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code qua the applicant namely Smt. Smita @ Sunita Ashok Hulegiri [Hulgunde] is quashed and set aside.

6. Application is allowed to above extent and stands disposed of accordingly.

Ordered accordingly.