Bombay High Court
Shamkumar Devananad Purbhe vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 25 August, 2025
Author: Nitin B. Suryawanshi
Bench: Nitin B. Suryawanshi
2025:BHC-AUG:23070-DB
1 Judgment in Cri.WP 1752-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1752 OF 2023
Shamkumar s/o Devanand Purbhe,
Age : 38 years, Occu.: Labour work,
R/o.: Masrul, Tal. & Dist.: Buldhana .... PETITIONER
(Original Accused)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector,
Kadim-Jalna Police Station,
Jalna, Ta. & Dist. Jalna
2. Soni w/o Ganesh Adiyal,
Age : 39 years, Occu.: Labour work,
R/o.: Sonal Nagar, Jalna,
Tal. & Dist. Jalna,
At present R/o.: Datta Deshmukh
Nagar, Bidi Kamgarvasahat,
Sangamner, Tal. Sangamner,
District : Ahmednagar .... RESPONDENTS
....
Mr. K. N. Shermale, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. A. S. Shinde, APP for Respondent No.1-State
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Party-in-person
....
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 13/08/2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 25/08/2025
JUDGMENT :
(PER : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of the parties.
2 Judgment in Cri.WP 1752-23.odt
2. By way of this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner is seeking quashment of
FIR 0015 of 2022 dated 17/01/2022, registered against him in
Kadim-Jalna Police Station in connection with offence under
Section 436 of IPC, which has been lodged against him at the
instance of present respondent No.2 i.e. complainant. The
petitioner has also sought quashment of proceedings of Sessions
Case No.342 of 2023 arose from the aforesaid FIR, which is
pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna.
3. On perusal of the FIR lodged by respondent No.2, it reveals
that her husband Ganesh Adiyal was acquainted with the present
petitioner. However, unfortunately, he died on 01/04/2021 leaving
behind respondent No.2- wife, two daughters, Arpita and Shradha.
On account of death of her husband, respondent No.2 received an
amount of Rs.34,51,516/-. After death of her husband the
relatives of the petitioner insisted respondent No.2 for performing
second marriage with the petitioner, but the relatives of respondent
No.2 refused the said proposal. Further according to respondent
No.2, the petitioner established fiduciary relations with her and
cheated her by transferring huge amount of Rs.28,94,500/- from
time to time from her account to his account. As such, respondent
No.2 had filed a report against the petitioner and his relatives in
3 Judgment in Cri.WP 1752-23.odt
Dhad Police Station, District Buldhana. Accordingly, Crime No.399
of 2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 420 & 506 r.w.
34 of IPC was registered against the petitioner, which was
subsequently transferred to Kadim-Jalna Police Station, Jalna.
4. However, thereafter on 09/01/2022 while respondent No.2
was at Sangamner, she received a call on her mobile from one
Mohan Kundlikar, resident of Jalna at about 10.00 a.m. It was
informed to her on the said call that door of her house at Jalna
alongwith quilt in the house was burnt by some unknown person
and one poster was also affixed on the wall of her house.
Respondent No.2 when went to her house at Sonal Nagar, Jalna on
17/01/2022, she found the door of her house in partially burnt
condition and something was burnt in the rooms of said house.
She found one poster affixed on the wall adjacent to the door as if it
was written by her husband. Therefore, respondent No.2 lodged
report against the present petitioner alongwith other persons
namely Akshay Mandave and Jairam Patil.
5. In view of the report, the police authorities of Kadim-Jalna
Police Station lodged the aforesaid FIR and on completion of
investigation, filed charge sheet bearing Sessions Case No.209 of
2023.
4 Judgment in Cri.WP 1752-23.odt
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no
case made out against the petitioner since the FIR lodged by
respondent No.2, is full of false accusations and lodged only to
harass and blackmail the petitioner with mala fide intention.
According to him, the FIR appears to be lodged only on the basis of
suspicion and even after thorough investigation, there is no
material on record to connect the present petitioner to the alleged
criminal act of setting the house of respondent No.2 on fire. As
such, he prayed for quashing of FIR alongwith proceedings arising
out of the same.
7. On the contrary, learned APP strongly opposes the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned APP pointed
out that respondent No.2 had already field one crime against the
petitioner alleging that the petitioner and his relatives cheated her
by taking out huge amount from her account, which she had
received on account of death of her husband. Thus, the learned
APP submits that considering the conduct of the petitioner, it
would be rather unsafe to quash the FIR and subsequent
proceedings.
8. Respondent No.2, who appeared as a party in person, also
strongly opposed the submissions by adopting the submissions of
learned APP. According to her, the petitioner had taken
5 Judgment in Cri.WP 1752-23.odt
disadvantage of her helpless condition and extracted huge amount
from her and thereby cheated her. Thus, she also prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
9. Heard rival submissions. Also perused the entire documents
on record.
10. Admittedly, charge sheet has been filed in the instant case.
However, in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Ch.
Bhajan Lal and others reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines as to in what
cases and in what manner the powers of quashing the F.I.R. under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised. We would like to reproduce
those guidelines herein below :
“(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
and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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
6 Judgment in Cri.WP 1752-23.odtwithout 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 concerned Act (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 Code or the
concerned Act, 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.
11. As per the aforesaid guidelines, it is cautioned that powers
under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR, are to be used
sparingly. Further, it has been also observed that even if the
contents of the FIR are taken as proved and then no offence as
alleged is made out then only such quashing is permissible.
Further, it is also observed that if the absurd allegations in the FIR
are made without any supporting material, then also the FIR can
be quashed.
12 In the instant case, FIR appears to be lodged merely on
suspicion since respondent No.2 had lodged a report against the
present petitioner and his relatives on account of her cheating as
7 Judgment in Cri.WP 1752-23.odt
mentioned in the FIR. However, it is to be noted that even after the
thorough investigation, no reliable material has been found, which
could connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. On going
through the statements of the witnesses recorded during
investigation, who resided nearby to the house of respondent No.2,
it reveals that nobody from the people residing nearby, had seen
the act of setting the house of respondent No.2 on fire. Nobody has
stated that he saw any person having suspicious conduct, near the
said house. Thus, it reveals that the FIR appears to be lodged
merely on suspicion. As such, for want of reliable material on
record, which can connect the petitioner with the alleged crime, we
are of the considered opinion that the guidelines for quashing the
FIR as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others (supra) are
required to be followed.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed.
Hence, the following order:
ORDER
1. Criminal Writ Petition is allowed.
2. First Information Report in Crime No.0015 of
2022 registered with registered with Kadim-Jalna
Police Station, Jalna, District Jalna & proceedings
8 Judgment in Cri.WP 1752-23.odtof Sessions Case No.342 of 2023, arising out of it
& pending before the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Jalna, are quashed and set aside.
(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
VS Maind/-