Bombay High Court
Datta Pandurang Raut vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 4 October, 2017
Bench: S.S. Shinde
cra4678.17
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4678 OF 2017
Datta Pandurang Raut,
Age-34 years, Occu:Business,
R/o-1 Number Chowk,
Latur, Tq. & Dist-Latur.
...APPLICANT
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
MIDC Police Station,
Latur, Tq. & Dist-Latur,
2) Uttam Govindrao Chakre,
Age-53 years, Occu:Service,
R/o-Ausa Police Station, Ausa,
Tq-Ausa, Dist-Latur.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.P.P. More Advocate for Applicant.
Ms.P.V. Diggikar, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1.
None present for Respondent No.2.
...
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND
MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 4TH OCTOBER, 2017
cra4678.17
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 Crime No.270
of 2017 dated 11th August, 2017, registered with
MIDC Police Station, Latur for the offence
punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits
that none of the ingredients of the alleged
offences get 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
cra4678.17
who is not the competent authority to register the
offence. The Applicant is a manager of Prerna
Club. It is submitted that Prerna Club is being
run as per the rules and regulations. There is no
violation of any condition as stipulated in the
license, there is no disturbance of the peace in
the society. 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
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. Upon careful perusal of the allegations
in the FIR, it appears that the informant along
with other police staff, went to Prerna Club at
cra4678.17
about 18.30 hours on 10th August, 2017. The
Applicant is a manager of said Prerna Club. The
informant along with his colleagues, entered in
the hall of the said Club and found that there
were two tables and more than four persons were
playing cards on each table. In another room,
more than four persons were playing cards on the
tables. The Assistant Police Inspector, Ausa, on
perusal of the license issued in favour of Prerna
Club by the District Collector and District
Magistrate, noticed that permission to run the
said club was granted by the District Magistrate
on 11th July, 2012, and as per the conditions
stipulated in license, only four persons were
permitted to sit across one table for playing
cards. However, it was found that on each table
more than four persons were playing cards and
therefore the Applicant has violated the
conditions stipulated in the license. Hence, the
Applicant has committed an offence punishable
under Section 188 of the I.P. Code.
cra4678.17
6. If the allegations in the FIR are
examined in the light of the provisions of Section
188 of the I.P. Code, none of the ingredients of
the said Section get attracted. To attract the
ingredients of Section 188 of I.P. Code upon
reading the allegations in the FIR, following four
ingredients should get attracted and thereafter
only it can be said that an alleged offences have
been disclosed under the said Section of the I.P.
Code:
1) There must be order promulgated by a
public servant,
2) That, the public servant must have
been lawfully empowered to promulgate
such order,
3) That, a person having a knowledge of
such order and directed by such order
(a) to abstain from a certain act, or
(b) to take certain order with a certain
property in his possession or under his
cra4678.17
management, has disobeyed such
direction,
4) That such disobedience causes or
tends to cause (i) obstruction,
annoyance or injury, or risk of it, to
any person lawfully employed or (ii)
danger of human life, health or safety,
(iii) a riot or affray.
7. In the first place, in the present case
there is no breach of order promulgated by a
public servant. Secondly, since such order was not
promulgated by any public servant, the question of
disobedience of such order would not arise. Even
otherwise also the allegation attributed to the
Applicant that more than four persons were playing
the cards on each table, is taken as it is, it has
not caused harm to anybody. In that view of the
matter, upon reading the allegations in the FIR in
its entirety, an ingredients of Section 188 of the
I.P. Code are not attracted in the facts of the
present case. At the most, it can be said that
cra4678.17
there was breach of the conditions stipulated in
the license, and in that respect the authority may
initiate appropriate action as is permissible in
law.
8. In that view of the matter, the
Application succeeds. The First Information Report
bearing Crime No.270 of 2017 dated 11th August,
2017 registered against the Applicant with MIDC
police station, Latur for the offence punishable
under Section 188 of the I.P. Code is quashed and
set aside.
9. Rule made absolute in above terms. The
Application stands disposed of, accordingly.
[MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]
asb/OCT17
