Milind Pralhad Dhoke And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1588 Bom

                                             {1}
                                                           cri application 5558.14.odt

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                              
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5558 OF 2014




                                                      
     1        Milind Pralhad Dhoke
              Age: 43 years, occu: service




                                                     
     2        Ravindra Shivdas Thakur
              age: 47 years, occu: service

              Both r/o Mahatma Phule Krishi-
              Vidyapeeth, Rahuri,




                                         
              Tq. Rahuri, District: Ahmednagar

     3
                             
              Subhash Govind Dalvi,
              Age; 47 years,occu: business,
              R/o Digras, Tqluka Rahuri,
              District: Ahymednagr                                      Petitioners
                            
              Versus


     1        The State of Maharashtra
      

              (through Rahuri Police Station
              Taluka Rahuri, District: Ahmednagar)
   



     2        Pradip Radhakrishna Naik,
              Age: 56 years, occu: service
              As sectional Engineer,
              R/o Mula Right Canal, Rahuri,





              Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar                        Respondents

Mr.S.S. Jadhavar advocate for the petitioners Mr.K.S. Patil, Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1 _______________

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & K.L. WADANE, JJ

(Date : 16th APRIL, 2016.)

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: R.M. Borde, J)

{2} cri application 5558.14.odt

1 Rule.

2 Heard. By consent of the parties, the application is taken for

final decision, at admission stage.

3 The instant petition is presented seeking quashment of the

criminal proceedings, initiated against the applicants, in pursuance

of filing of the first information report (FIR) by respondent No.2,

registered at Police Station Rahuri bearing No.I-259/2014 for

offences punishable under sections 353, 506, of the Indian Penal

Code (IPC) as well as sections 93, 94 and 96 of The Maharashtra

Irrigation Act, 1976.

4 The complainant is a sectional Engineer functioning in the

Irrigation Department, whereas the accused are the employees of

Mahatma Phule Krushi Vidyapeeth. There was some dispute in

respect of blockage of a water distributory. It is alleged that the

accused refused to remove the impediments which had an effect of

blocking flow of water in the distributory.

5 On perusal of the FIR, there does not appear to be any

allegation referable to ingredients of an offence punishable under

section 353 or 506 of IPC. However, on perusal of the FIR and

material collected by the prosecution, there appear allegations

against the accused under section 93, 94 and 96 of the

{3} cri application 5558.14.odt

Maharashtra Irrigation Act, 1976. It is pointed out by the learned

APP that the charge sheet has been presented and as such no

interference be caused.

6 We have perused the first information report as well as the

statement of the witnesses annexed to the charge sheet. On

perusal of the papers, it transpires that there are absolutely no

allegations made by the informant as well as any of the witnesses

in respect of assault or use of criminal force to deter public servant

from discharge of his duty. Similarly, there are absolutely no

allegations as regards the criminal intimidation by any of the

accused.

7 In this view of the matter, prosecution of the petitioners for

offences punishable under sections 353 and 506 IPC is uncalled for.

The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners, in respect

of offences punishable under sections 353 and 506 IPC stands

quashed. It would be open for the prosecution to proceed against

the accused for the alleged commission of offences under sections

93, 94 and 96 of the Maharashtra Irrigation Act.

8 Rule is made absolutely to the extent as specified above.

                  (K.L. WADANE, J)                 (R.M.BORDE, J)
     vbd