PRABHAKAR N SHETTY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application by the Accused No. 1 in D. C. B. , C. I. D. , C. R. No. 252/88 of Malad Police Station, since committed to the Court of Sessions for trial, is for quashing the order of committal of the Petitioner made by the learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Bombay.

(2.) BEFORE setting out the facts on the basis of which the Petitioner has been charged, it should be noted that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash the proceedings. The cases in which the proceedings may be quashed cannot be exhaustively laid down, but in R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab. , three broad categories have been laid down. The Applicant bases his case on this ground. Even if all the accusations of the prosecution are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not constitute the offence of conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased Bhaskar. In exercising the jurisdiction which I am called upon to exercise, it is not open for me to embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence is reliable or not. I will have to accept as I will presently do-- the statements of every witness which purports to implicate the Applicant at the face value and then judge whether there is against the Applicant evidence of conspiracy to commit murder.

(3.) I have read the statements of Rupesh Kumar which is the F. I. R dated 15-7-1988, the statement of Kripashankar who was injured in the incident, Smt. Godavari, Sadhana, Vijay Mahadik, Sureshkumar and Bhagwandas Patil. These are all the witnesses whose statements constitute the evidence in the case. The admitted facts are these: In 1987, the Applicant herein, Prabhakar N. Shetty, purchased the property known as Daruwala Compound Malad, in which were situated 1200 structures occupied by different tenants. On 2nd October 1987, he occupied the property, erected his sign-board and build a few cabins for the purpose of supervising the property. He employed watchmen and set out to seek vacant possession by evicting the occupants. Admittedly, he resorted to two modes of persuation : (i) payment of money to the occupant and (ii) offer of alternative accommodation in the building which he intended to erect in the same compound. All Statement of Godavari and other occupants. the witnesses have stated that the Applicant persuaded 400 occupants to vacate the premises by paying money to them or offering alternative home to those who did not wish to vacate the compound. Thus, the Applicant was always interested in securing vacant possession of the property by removing structures after the occupants vacated.