1 jg.apl 231.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Criminal Application (APL) No. 231 of 2017
Madhuri D/o. Murari Madavi,
Aged about 45 years, Occu : Service
(Chief Officer, Municipal Council,
Paoni, Distt. Bhandara) .... Applicant
// Versus //
The State of Maharashtra
Through P.S.O., Police Station Paoni,
Distt. Bhandara. .... Non-Applicant
Shri M. I. Dhatrak, Advocate for the applicant
Shri S. S. Doifode, Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : 22-9-2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.) The criminal application is admitted and heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this criminal application, the applicant seeks the quashing and setting aside of the First Information Report registered against the applicant for the offences punishable under Section 341 and 353 of the Penal Code.
3. At the relevant time, the applicant was performing the duties .....2/-
::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 01:10:39 :::
2 jg.apl 231.17.odt as a Chief Officer of the Municipal Council. According to the applicant, she was assigned the duty of tax recovery along with the other duties and the Collector had directed her to ensure 100% tax recovery. It is the case of the applicant that while performing her duties, she had served three notices on the Police Station, Paoni for payment of the property tax dues. Despite the service of said notices, since the non-applicant had neither paid the tax nor had denied the liability or asked for time to make the payment, the applicant gave an intimation to the Police Station through the Police Station Officer at Paoni, District Bhandara that the property in the police station would be attached if the tax dues are not paid within the stipulated time. Since the property tax dues were not paid by the non-applicant, the applicant symbolically sealed two rooms of Police Station, Paoni. After the applicant took the aforesaid action, the non- applicant registered the First Information Report against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 353 of the Penal Code. The applicant has sought for the quashing and setting aside of the first information report.
4. Shri Dhatrak, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the non-applicant could not have registered the offence against the applicant as the applicant was merely performing her duties pertaining to the recovery of taxes. It is stated that the applicant was enjoined with .....3/-
::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 01:10:39 :::
3 jg.apl 231.17.odt the duty of recovery of taxes by the Collector and she was directed to recover 100% tax dues. It is submitted that after the applicant had joined her duties as Chief Officer, the tax recovery was increased from 60% to 90%. It is submitted that though three notices were served on the non-applicant, they had not taken any steps to pay the tax dues and left with no alternative but to give intimation on 10-3-2017 that the property of the non-applicant would be attached if the tax dues are not paid, the symbolic attachment was made. It is stated that in the circumstances of the case, the FIR registered against the applicant is a counterblast to the action of the applicant for recovery of tax dues and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.
5. Shri Doifode, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the non-applicant supported the registration of the FIR. It is submitted that since the arrears of taxes had exceeded more than a Lakh of Rupees, the Superintendent of Police at Police Station, Paoni had written to the Superintendent of Police at Bhandara that the amount required for the payment of dues should be sanctioned. It is submitted that without giving ample opportunity to the non-applicant, two rooms in the Police Station at Paoni were sealed, as a result of which the police personnel in the said Police Station were restrained from discharging their duties.
.....4/-
::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 01:10:39 :::
4 jg.apl 231.17.odt
6. In the circumstances of the case, we find that the non- applicant was not justified in registering the FIR against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 353 of the Penal Code. It is apparent from the facts that we have narrated herein above that the applicant was performing the official duty of recovery of taxes and though she had served three notices on the non-applicant that the arrears of tax should be paid, the non-applicant had not paid the taxes. It appears that after serving the intimation-notice dated 10-3-2017 on the non-applicant that if the tax dues are not paid within specified time, the property of the non-applicant would be attached, the action was taken by the applicant to symbolically seal two rooms in the Police Station at Paoni. In the circumstances of the case, in our view, the non- applicant could not have registered the first information report against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 353 of the Penal Code. It cannot be said on the basis of the allegations in the FIR that the applicant had used criminal force on the police and staff in the Police Station at Paoni thereby deterring them from discharging their duties. We also do not find from the allegations that the police and the staff were wrongfully restrained. We find that the applicant had symbolically sealed two room in Police Station, Paoni while discharging her official duty and the non-applicant could not have registered the FIR against the applicant that she had wrongfully restrained the officers and .....5/-
::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 01:10:39 :::
5 jg.apl 231.17.odt staff in the Police Station from discharging their duties. We find that the action on the part of the non-applicant of filing the first information report is a counterblast to the action taken by the applicant for recovery of tax dues while performing her duties as a Chief Officer. In the circumstances of the case, the first information report registered against the applicant is liable to be quashed and set aside.
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the criminal application is allowed. The First Information Report registered against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 353 of the Penal Code is hereby quashed and set aside. Order accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
wasnik
...../-
::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 01:10:39 :::