Yogesh and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others

Yogesh and Others vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Nagpur Decided Apr 11, 2016

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1184756

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1184756
Court: Mumbai Nagpur High Court
Judge: B.R. Gavai &Amp; The Honourable Mrs. Justice Swapna Joshi
Decided On: Apr 11, 2016
Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No. 1007 of 2015
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Yogesh and Others

Respondent

State of Maharashtra and Others

Excerpt

.....were telephonic conversations between her and said shashikant verma. it is further alleged that huge expenses were incurred on the engagement ceremony and also for the marriage ceremony by her parents, which was scheduled to be held on 22.11.2015. however, on 20.11.2015, the wife of said shashikant verma namely dileshwari verma, showing the call detail report of mobile conversations between respondent no.4 and said shashikant verma, made false allegations against her character, due to which the marriage scheduled on 22.11.2015 came to be cancelled by present petitioner no.1. 4. it could thus be seen that, even taking the allegation in the f.i.r. at it's face value, no ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under section 420 of the indian penal code are made out. there is no allegation as to how any of the petitioners have induced respondent no.4 to deliver the property to any of the petitioners. 5. insofar as rest of the petitioners except petitioner no.1 are concerned, there is not even a whisper with regard to their role in the alleged crime. the only role attributed to them is that the rest of the petitioners were also informed about the character of respondent no.4 by said dileshwari w/o. shashikant verma. 6. in that view of the matter, we find that continuation of criminal proceedings against the present petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of law. rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) of the present writ petition. no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

2. By way of present petition, the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside First Information Report dt.22.11.2015 registered vide Crime No.543 of 2015 at Police Station, Gittikhadan for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Perusal of the F.I.R. would reveal that respondent no.4 has alleged therein that her marriage was arranged with petitioner no.1. It is her allegation that when she was working as a Police Constable at the Police Headquarters, one Shashikant Verma, who was working as an Assistant Police Inspector, was indulged in the business of money lending. It is further alleged that she used to assist said Shashikant Verma in the business of money lending and as such, there were telephonic conversations between her and said Shashikant Verma. It is further alleged that huge expenses were incurred on the engagement ceremony and also for the marriage ceremony by her parents, which was scheduled to be held on 22.11.2015. However, on 20.11.2015, the wife of said Shashikant Verma namely Dileshwari Verma, showing the call detail report of mobile conversations between respondent no.4 and said Shashikant Verma, made false allegations against her character, due to which the marriage scheduled on 22.11.2015 came to be cancelled by present petitioner no.1.

4. It could thus be seen that, even taking the allegation in the F.I.R. at it's face value, no ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are made out. There is no allegation as to how any of the petitioners have induced respondent no.4 to deliver the property to any of the petitioners.

5. Insofar as rest of the petitioners except petitioner no.1 are concerned, there is not even a whisper with regard to their role in the alleged crime. The only role attributed to them is that the rest of the petitioners were also informed about the character of respondent no.4 by said Dileshwari w/o. Shashikant Verma.

6. In that view of the matter, we find that continuation of criminal proceedings against the present petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (A) of the present Writ Petition. No order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Mumbai Nagpur · 2016 Same Parties Yogesh and Others vs State of Maharashtra and Others Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge B.R. Gavai &Amp; The Honourable Mrs. Justice Swapna Joshi