Yogendra Jiledar Singh vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3193 Bom

           Digitally
           signed by
           Vishwanath                                1/5                CRWP-271-2019.doc
Vishwanath S. Sherla
S. Sherla  Date:
           2021.02.25
           15:03:31
           +0530
                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                               CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 271 OF 2019

            Yogendra Jiledar Singh of Mumbai
            Indian Inhabitant aged 35 years,
            Residing at C-33, Saubhagya
            Building, Jeevan Vikas Kendra Marg,
            Kol Dongari, Andheri (E), Mumbai.              ...PETITIONER

                     Versus

            1.       The State of Maharashtra
                     At the instance of Principal
                     Secretary, Home Department,
                     Mantralaya, Mumbai.

            2.       The Director General of Police,
                     Maharashtra State, Mumbai,
                     Shahid Bhagatsingh Marg,
                     Mumbai.

            3.       Commissioner of Police,
                     Having office at Crowford Market,
                     Mumbai.

            4.       Addl. Director General of Police
                     Law & Order, Shahid Bhagatsingh
                     Marg, Mumbai.

            5.       Dy. Commissioner of Police
                     Zone IX, Bandra, Mumbai.

            6.       Senior P.I., of B.K.C. Police
                     Station, Mumbai.

            7.       Sunil Panchal of Mumbai
                     Indian Inhabitant at present
                     posted at P.S.I. at B.K.C. Police
                     Station, Andheri (E),
                     Mumbai.                               ...RESPONDENTS

            Bhagyawant Punde
                                            2/5                        CRWP-271-2019.doc




                                   ...
Mr. Ajit Anekar a/w. Mr. Thomas James i/b. Auris Legal for the Petitioner.
Dr. F R Shaikh, APP for State.
                                   ...

                                  CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
                                          MANISH PITALE, JJ.

                                  DATE :         18th FEBRUARY, 2021.

JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE,J]:

.                  This petition takes an exception to the C.R. No. 303 of 2018

dated 03.11.2018 registered by B.K.C. Police Station under Sections 353,

323, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 85 of the Bombay

Prohibition Act, and further seeks directions to initiate inquiry against

Respondent No. 6 and 7, police officers of B.K.C. police station.

2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that even if the

allegations in the FIR are taken at its face value and read in its entirety, an

alleged offences are not disclosed. It is submitted that an ingredients of

Section 353 of IPC are not attracted and the other offences are non

cognizable. The police officer have no reason to pull out the petitioner from

auto rikshaw, therefore, inquiry of Respondent No. 6 and 7 about atrocities

committed by them against the petitioner needs to be conducted.

Bhagyawant Punde
                                           3/5                        CRWP-271-2019.doc

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner invites our attention to the

unreported judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court bench

at Aurangabad, (Coram:- S.S. Shinde & Sangitrao S. Patil, JJ.) in the case of

Kundan S/o Khanderao Dhande Vs. Vasudeo Nivruti Fegde & Anr., and

submits that no offence is disclosed against the petitioner under Section 353

of IPC, since there is no allegation of an assault by the petitioner to the said

police officers i.e. respondent no. 6 and 7. It is stated that an alleged shouting

of the petitioner is not stated to be coupled with any other gesture. Mere

shouting cannot be termed as an assault, so as to, attract the ingredients of

Section 353 of IPC. It is submitted that no physical force has been used by

the petitioner against Respondent No. 6 and 7. Our attention has been invited

to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of

Haryana & others Vs. Bhajanlal and ors. (1992) Supp (1) Supreme Court

Cases 335, in support of contention that an allegations made in the FIR, even

if they are taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima

facie constitute an offence or make out a case against the petitioners.

4. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for Respondent-State

relying upon the contents of FIR submits that an alleged offences are

disclosed, therefore, needs further investigation.

Bhagyawant Punde
                                           4/5                         CRWP-271-2019.doc

5. We have given careful consideration to the rival submissions.

With the assistance of learned counsel appearing for Petitioner and learned

APP, carefully perused the pleadings and grounds taken in the petition,

annexures thereto and contents of the FIR. It would be apt to reproduce

relevant portion of the FIR, which reads as under:-

iksfyl Bk.ks gn~nhr xLr djhr vlrkuk fnukad [email protected]@2018 jksth 23-40 okts- lqekjkl if'pe fu;a=.k d{kkdMqu lans'k izkIr >kyk dh] cVj¶yk; ckj] chdslh] ckanzk] iqoZ] eaqcbZ ;k fBdk.kh ,d ble efgykaph NsM dk<r vkgs-

lnjpk lans'k izkIr gksrkp 23-50 okts lqekjkl cVj¶yk; ckj leksj xsyks vlrk ,d dkG;k jaxkpk 'kVZ ifj/kku dsysyk ble gk eksB;keksB;kus vkjMkvksjM d:u xksa/kG ?kkyqu ,dk fj{kk pkydkl ekjgk.k djr vlrkuk fnlqu vkY;kus R;kl Fkkacfo.;kpk o fj{kk pkydkl enr djr vlrkuk ueqn blekus eyk /kDdkcqddh d:u eyk ek>s drZO; dj.;kl vMFkGk fuekZ.k dsY;kus eh rkRdkG ok;jysl lsVo:u dkWy d:u if'pe fu;a=.k d{kkdMs vfrfjDr iksfyl enrhph ekx.kh dsyh vlrk lnj fBdk.kh chV ek'kZy dz- 1 ojhy vaeynkj iksf'kdz [email protected] o chdslh eksckbZy ou vf/kdkjh lfpu ikVhy o LvkWQ lg lnj fBkd.kh vkys vlrk R;kauh o eh ueqn blekl rks djr vlysY;k xksa/kG Fkkacfo.;kdjhrk leto.;kpk iz;Ru dsyk- iajrq rks ,sd.;kP;k euLFkhrhr ulY;kus R;kl rkC;kr ?ksr vlrkuk R;kus iksfyl iFkdkl /kDdkcqDdh d:u 'I FUCK YOU', 'BASTARD', I SHOW YOU vls cksyqu f'kohxkG d:u ^rqEgh eyk vksG[kr ukgh- eh gk;dksVZpk odhy vkgs- rqeph onhZ mrjfoY;kf'kok; jkg.kkj ukgh v'kh /kedh iksfyl iFkdkl nsoqu gqTtr ?kkyq ykxyk- rsOgk ueqn blekl o fj{kk pkydkl iq<hy dk;Zokgh djhrk iksfyl Bk.;kr vk.kys vlrk ueqn blekus iksfyl Bk.;krhy Bk.ks vaeynkj d{kkrhy iksfyl vf/kdkjh o vaeynkj rlsp rsFks mifLFkr vlysY;k rdzkjnkjkauk f'kohxkG d: ykxyk- lnj blekl eh uko o iRrk fopkjys vlrk R;kus R;kps uko ;ksxsnz ftysnkj flax o; 35 o"ksZ] /kank& ofdy jk-Bh- lh 33] lkSHkkX; fcYMhazx] thou fodkl dasnz ekxZ]

Bhagyawant Punde 5/5 CRWP-271-2019.doc

dksy Mksaxjh va/ksjh] iqoZ] eaqcbZ vls lkafxrys- ueqn fj{kk pkydkl R;kps uko o iRrk fopkjys vlrk R;kus R;kps uko Jh- jfoanz eksguyky ;kno] o; 36 o"ksZ] /kank& fj{kk pkyd] vls lkafxrys- ueqn ble gk nk:P;k veayk[kkyh vlY;kps fnlqu vkY;kus ueqn blekl HkkHkk :X.kky;] ckanzk] eaqcbZ ;k fBdk.kh eksckbZy ou ;k okgukus usoqu R;kps oSn;fd; rikl.kh dj.;kr vkyh vlrk MkWDVjkauh ueqn ble gk en;kP;k veayk[kkyh vlY;kpk vgoky fnyk-

[emphasis supplied]

6. Upon careful perusal of aforesaid contents of the FIR, it is

crystal clear that the petitioner used abusive language/words and also used

force to push the concerned police officers. It is also mentioned in the FIR

that the petitioner was under influence of liquor. In our considered opinion,

the contents of the FIR do attract an ingredients of alleged offences and

consequently alleged offences are disclosed. No case is made out to quash the

FIR. Hence, the writ petition stands rejected.

7. The observations made herein above are prima facie in nature

and confined to the adjudication of the present writ petition only.

      ( MANISH PITALE, J.)                                 (S. S. SHINDE, J.)




Bhagyawant Punde