Bombay High Court
Fakruddin Ahemad Lohar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 20 July, 2017
Bench: S.S. Shinde
cra1989.17
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1989 OF 2017
Fakruddin Ahmad Lohar,
Age-52 years, Occu:Business,
R/o-Lohar Palace, Chalisgaon Road,
At Post/Tal/Dist-Dhule.
...APPELICANT
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Azadnagar Police Station, Dhule,
Tal/Dist-Dhule,
2) Navita Dilip Ghuge,
Age-Major, Occu:Service,
Add: Azadnagar Police Station,
At/Post/Tal/Dist-Dhule.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.Pawan B. Pawar Advocate for Applicant.
Mr.K.D. Munde, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1.
Respondent No.2 is served.
...
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND
S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 12TH JULY, 2017.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 20TH JULY, 2017.
cra1989.17
JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard finally with the consent of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This Application is filed by the
Applicant praying therein to quash and set aside
the First Information Report bearing C.R. No.29 of
2017, registered with Azadnagar Police Station,
Dhule for the offence punishable under Section 353
and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits
that none of the ingredients of the alleged
offences gets attracted even upon reading the
allegations in the First Information Report (for
short "FIR") in its entirety. It is submitted that
the offence is registered by the police officer
stating therein that Applicant entered in the
police station and prohibited the informant, who
cra1989.17
is police official, from discharging her duty as a
public servant. It is submitted that one minor
girl by name Miss. Momina went to the police
station to file complaint against one Raju. It is
submitted that Applicant went to the police
station to intervene in the matter as per the say
of father of said Raju but police officers did not
allow him to do so. It is submitted that after
registering the First Information by said Momina,
the Applicant left the police station. The
Applicant has not assaulted and or used any
criminal force to deter public servant from
discharging his/her duty. The allegations made
against the Applicant in the First Information
Report are false. The Applicant is falsely
implicated in the alleged offence with ulterior
motive. Therefore, he submits that the FIR may be
quashed.
4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P.
appearing for the State invites our attention to
cra1989.17
the contents of the FIR and submits that alleged
offences are disclosed, which need further
investigation.
5. We have heard learned counsel appearing
for the Applicant and learned A.P.P. appearing for
the State. It would be apt to reproduce here the
relevant portion of the allegations made against
the Applicant in the First Information Report:-
"frph fru eqykauh NsM dk<Y;kpk frpk vkjksi vkgs- R;keqGs
vR;kPkkjkl daVkGwu fnukad 01-03-2017 jksth xGQkl ?ksouw
vkRegR;k dj.;kpk iz;Ru dsyk vkgs- lnj eqyhus vkRegR;k
dj.;kiwohZ fryk =kl ns.kk&;k eqykaps ukos frus lqlkbZM uksVl
fygwu Bsoyh vlY;kps letkowu lkaxr gksrs- RksOgk Qd:nnhu
yksgkj ckyw ykxyk dh] rqEgk iksyhlkauk dkgh ,d letr ukgh
ß;k eqyhph rdkzj ?ksow udk , yMdh ukSVadh dj jgh gS- >qBh
gS- vls lkaxwu jktw ds f[kykQ rdzkj ns jgh gS- jktw esjs yMds
dk nksLr gS Eg.kwu eh iksfyl LVs'kuyk vkyks vkgsÞ vls
lkaxwu vkEgh dke djhr vlysY;k ljdkjh dkedktkr O;R;;
vk.kwu] vkeps drZO; dj.;kiklwu tk.khoiwoZd ijko`Rr d:u]
eyk /kedh nsow ykxyk dh] lnj eqyhph rdzkj ?ksryh rj eh
rqepsfo:/n ofj"BkadMs o U;k;ky;kr rdzkj nk[ky djsy- rlsp
eh LFkkfud /kqGs fV-Ogh- PkWusyoj rqepsfo:/n ckreh nsowu
rqeph onhZ mrjohy vls lkaxwu rdzkj ns.kkjh eqyhph ys[kh
rdzkj oj lgh ?ksrY;kuarj ,Qvk;vkj oj lgh d: fnyh ukgh
cra1989.17
o ;s yMdh dh gkyr vPNh ugh gS vls Eg.kwu rkRdkG
nok[kk.;kr ?ksowu tko;kps vkgs Eg.kwu ueqn rdzkjnkj fgyk
flOghy gkWfLiVy /kqGs ;sFks ikBfoys- R;kosGh rks rqe lcdks
ns[k yqaxk vls tksjtksjkr /kedh nsowu iksyhl LVs'ku e/kwu
fu?kwu xsyk-"
. Upon careful perusal of the allegations
in the FIR, it appears that the Applicant asked
the informant not to register the complaint of
said girl and asked that if the complaint of said
girl is registered, he will file complaint against
the informant to her superiors and also in the
Court, and that he will give the news against the
informant and others in local Dhule T.V. Channel.
6. If the allegations in the FIR are
examined in the light of the provisions of Section
353 of the I.P. Code, none of the ingredients of
the said Section gets attracted. To attract the
provisions under Section 353 of the I.P. Code,
there should be allegation that accused assaulted
the public servant or used criminal force with the
cra1989.17
intention to prevent or deter the public servant
from discharging his duty as a public servant. It
is clear from the allegations in the First
Information Report that no force was used by the
Applicant. Perusal of the contents of the First
Information Report reveals that the Applicant has
neither assaulted the informant nor used criminal
force to prevent the informant or any other police
officer from discharging his/her official duty.
In that view of the matter, upon reading the
allegations in the FIR in its entirety, an
ingredients of Section 353 of the I.P. Code are
not attracted in the facts of the present case.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Manik
Taneja and another vs. State of Karnataka and
another1, after considering the facts in the said
case, observed in Para-12 as under:
"12. A reading of the above provision
1 2015 A.I.R.(S.C.)(Supp) 671
cra1989.17
shows that the essential ingredients of
the offence under Section 353 IPC are
that the person accused of the offence
should have assaulted the public servant
or used criminal force with the intention
to prevent or deter the public servant
from discharging his duty as such public
servant. By perusing the materials
available on record, it appears that no
force was used by the appellants to
commit such an offence. There is
absolutely nothing on record to show that
the appellants either assaulted the
respondents or used criminal force to
prevent the second respondent from
discharging his official duty. Taking the
uncontroverted allegations, in our view,
that the ingredients of the offence under
Section 353 IPC are not made out."
8. To attract the offence under Section 506
of the I.P. Code, essential ingredients are that
the accused person should have committed the
offence of criminal intimidation. Upon reading the
allegations in the FIR, it is not alleged that the
cra1989.17
Applicant has committed the offence of criminal
intimidation. In that view of the matter, upon
reading the allegations in the FIR in its
entirety, an ingredients of Section 506 of the
I.P. Code are also not attracted.
9. In that view of the matter, the Criminal
Application is allowed. The First Information
Report bearing C.R. No.29 of 2017 registered with
Azadnagar police station, Dhule for the offence
punishable under Section 353 and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code is quashed and set aside.
. Rule made absolute in above terms. The
Criminal Application stands disposed of,
accordingly.
[S.M. GAVHANE, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]
asb/JUL17
