Madhuri D/O. Murari Madavi vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7455 Bom

                                          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/-

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/-

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/-

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/-

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




                                                                                            ...../-