Compelling Applicants To Face Trial On Unfounded Allegations Is Fit Case To Exercise Discretion U/s. 482 Of CrPC: Bombay HC

While quashing the trial pending against the Applicants before Sessions Court and exercising discretion under Section 482 of CrPC, the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad Bench has held that Applicants were forced to face trial based on unfounded allegations which resulted in abuse of process of law.

Taking support from the judgment of the Apex Court in Musstt Rehana Begum vs. State of Assam & Anr. [2019 SCC Online SC 2163], the Single Judge Bench of Justice Anuja Prabhudessai observed that “the first information report as well as the material which forms part of the chargesheet, even if taken at face value and accepted in entirety, does not disclose any cognizable offence as against these Applicants. In such circumstances, compelling these Applicants to face trial on such unfounded allegations would be nothing but an abuse of process of law”.

Advocate S.S. Bohra appeared for the Applicants, whereas, APP S.D. Ghayal appeared for the Respondents.

In the brief background of the case, the Applicants were facing trial against offences punishable under Sections 307, 353, 186, 201, 216, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act. It was the case of Applicants that while the first Applicant was involved in the fight over car parking, other Applicants were merely accompanying him in the same car. The Respondent (police officers) registered FIR based upon a complaint filed by the second Respondent, and went for a search, but, the third, fourth and sixth Applicant assisted the first Applicant in fleeing him away by removing the car registration number.

Upon perusal of facts and submissions made by the parties, the Bench examined the offences as contended by the Respondents against the Applicants, and found that with respect to the allegations that the second to sixth Applicants were present at the place of the incidence, the FIR does not state their presence.

While discarding submissions made by the second Applicant wherein, he had submitted that proper procedure under Section 165 of CrPC was not followed and thus according to State of Rajasthan v/s. Rehman [AIR 1960 SC 210], entry by the police officer in the middle of the night is illegal, the Bench noted that the complaint against the first Applicant was also made for firing a gunshot, and hence, in accordance with Section 41 read with Section 47, the police officer was performing his lawful duty.

“Clause (ba) of Section 41 in particular authorizes a police officer to arrest a person against whom credible information has been received that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to more than seven years whether with or without fine or with death sentence and the police office has reason to believe on the basis of that information that such person has committed the said offence”, added the Bench.

While clarifying that the fact that the police team had visited the house without registering the crime would not be relevant as Section 41 as well as 47 confers wide powers on the police to act swiftly even on credible information and reasonable suspicion for prevention or detection of cognizable offence, the Bench dismissed submissions by the police personnel that they were obstructed from discharging their lawful duty and hence offence under Sections 186 and 353 are made out.

With respect to charges as per Section 201, 216, 504 and 506 of the IPC, the High Court concluded that essential ingredients for the said offences are not made out, and therefore, set aside the trial pending against the Applicants before the Sessions Judge.

Cause Title: Mohd. Bin Saeed Bin Kileb and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Click here to read/download Judgment