Bombay High Court
Satvik Vinod Bangre And 2 Others vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr Pso ... on 23 March, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
1 APL74.21 with
133.21 (1).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NOS.74/201 WITH 133/2021
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 74 OF 2021
1. Satvik Vinod Bangre,
aged about 25 years, Occu. Business,
R/o. Badkas Square, Mahal,
Nagpur.
2. Prabjyot Singh Inderjeet Singh Dhillon,
Aged about 23 years, Occupation: Business,
R/o. Uttam Singh Dhillon Saw Mill Area,
Lashkaribagh, Nagpur.
3. Avanti Vinod Bangre,
Aged about 21 years, Occupation : Student,
R/o. Badkas Square, Mahal,
Nagpur. . . . . APPLICANTS
. . . . VERSUS . . . .
1. The State of Maharashtra through
Police Station Officer,
Police Station Kotwali,
District - Nagpur.
2. Jitendra Ashok Gurnule,
Aged about 36 years, Occupation:
Maharashtra Police,
Official Address: Police Station, Kotwali.. . . . NON-APPLICANTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri C. B. Burve, Advocate for applicants.
Shri T. A. Mirza, A.P.P. for non-applicant no. 1/State.
None for the non-applicant no.2.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 133 OF 2021
Sameer Avinash Pimpalshende,
Aged 21 years, Occ. Student,
R/o. Ward No. 1, Reliance Tower,
Rajura, Chandrapur. . . . . APPLICANT
::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2021 05:17:03 :::
2 APL74.21 with
133.21 (1).odt
. . . . VERSUS . . . .
1. State of Maharashtra through
P.S.O., P.S. Kotwali,
Dist.-Nagpur.
2. Jitendra Ashok Gurnule,
Age 36 years, Occ. Govt. Servant (PSI),
R/o. Police Station Kotwali,
Nagpur. (Complainant)
3. The Commissioner of Police,
Sadar, Nagpur - 440001. . . . . NON-APPLICANTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None for applicant.
Shri T. A. Mirza, A.P.P. for non-applicants/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- Z. A. HAQ AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED :- 23.03.2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Amit B. Borkar, J)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. By these applications under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the applicants have challenged registration of
First Information Report No.245/2020 for offences punishable under
Sections 353, 186 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The First Information Report came to be registered
against the applicants with the accusations that on 23.10.2020 at 9.00
a.m., the non-applicant no.2 was on duty the applicant no.1 lodged
complaint against Juvenile Offender Vickky Nikhare. It is alleged that
the non-applicant no.2 took note of the complaint and same was
::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2021 05:17:03 :::
3 APL74.21 with
133.21 (1).odt
informed to the applicants. It is alleged that on 23.10.2020 at 8.00
p.m. the applicant no.1 came along with her sister and other two boys
and threatened the non-applicant no.2 and by showing documents on
the table of the non-applicant no.2 started video recording on their
mobile. It is alleged that the non-applicant no.2 requested the
applicants not to make video recording but, the applicants threatened
the non-applicant no.2 that the video recording would be made viral
on social media. Therefore, the non-applicant no.2 lodged report
against the applicants.
4. The applicants have, therefore, filed present applications
challenging registration of First Information Report. On 18.1.2021 and
27.1.2021, this Court directed the non-applicant no.1 and the non-
applicant no.2 to file separate affidavit and in the meantime, it was
directed charge-sheet shall not be filed against the applicants without
leave of this Court.
5. In the connected Criminal Application arising out of the
same incident and First Information Report, the Commissioner of
Police, Nagpur City, has filed affidavit. In the said affidavit, in view of
the Circular dated 24.1.2019 offence against Mr. Vickky Nikhare ,
Juvenile, was not registered. But, curiously, it is noted in paragraph 3
that the incident was not covered in C.C.T.V. The outside premises of
the Police Station including station house office does not have a
::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2021 05:17:03 :::
4 APL74.21 with
133.21 (1).odt
C.C.T.V. coverage. It is further stated that a short clip of duration of 25
and 43 seconds, recorded by the accused shows some aggressive
behaviour by the accused. It is stated that though prima facie material
is on record in relation to Sections 353 and 186 read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code but, there is no material to attract Sections 3
and 4 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. It is stated that video footage
of assault on public servant was not made available because as it is
not under the coverage of C.C.T.V.
6. We have carefully considered the allegations in the First
Information Report. From the affidavit filed by the Commissioner of
Police, it is clear that there is no material in relation to Sections 3 and
4 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. In relation to other offences
registered against the applicants are concerned, the allegations made
against the applicants of video recording the non-applicant no.2 when
he refused to initiate action against the molester is not sufficient to
attract essential ingredients of Sections 353 and 183 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code. From the allegations in the First
Information Report, it appears that the applicants have not obstructed
or created hindrance to the public officer in performance of his duty.
There is no allegation that the applicants have either assaulted or in
any manner used force or violence used against the non-applicant
no.2. Therefore, we are satisfied that the continuance of the
proceedings against the applicants would amount to abuse of process
::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2021 05:17:03 :::
5 APL74.21 with
133.21 (1).odt
of Court. We, therefore, pass the following order:-
ORDER
First Information Report No.245/2020 registered with non-
applicant no.1 - police station for offences punishable under Sections
353, 186, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4
of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 is quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
Ambulkar
