Balvir Rameshsingh Chavhan vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 12589 Bom

                                                    1          Cri.APL No.513.21-J.odt

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                    NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

             CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 513 OF 2021

 Balvir Rameshsingh Chavhan,
 Aged 34 years, Occu. Agriculturist,
 R/o. Thakurpura, Nandgaonpeth,
 Amravati, Tq. and Dist. - Amravati.                         ......APPLICANT

                      ... VERSUS ...

 1.     State of Maharashtra,
        Through Police Station Officer,
        P. S. Nandgaonpeth, Amravati,
        Tah. & District Amravati.

 2.     Commissioner of Police,
        Amravati City, Amravati.

 3.     Mukesh S/o. Ashokkumar Jagmalani,
        Aged 35 years, Occu. Business,
        R/o. Dastur Nagar, MIDC Road,
        Amravati, Distt. Amravati.        ......NON-APPLICANTS
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri P. V. Navlani, Advocate for Applicant.
 Shri S. M. Ghodeswar, Additional Public Prosecutor for Non-applicants/State.
 Shri J. B. Kasat, Advocate for Non-applicant No.2.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          CORAM :          V. M. DESHPANDE AND
                           AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

          DATE        :    03.09.2021.

 ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)


 1.            Heard.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the applicant is challenging registration of the

First Information Report No.169/2021 for the offence punishable

under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The First Information Report came to be registered

against the applicant with the accusations that the

complainant/non-applicant No.3 was found in his shop during

restrictions imposed under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and

the complainant/non-applicant No.3 had visited his shop for the

purpose of taking file and when he was inside the shop and the

shutter was closed, the applicant came in his shop and asked the

non-applicant No.3 as to why he has opened the shop when the

restrictions are in force. It is also alleged that the applicant

demanded an amount of Rs. 5000/- from the non-applicant No.3

as a bribe. It is also alleged that the applicant threatened that if

the non-applicant No.3 does not pay the amount, it will become

difficult for the non-applicant No.3. Thereafter, the applicant took

photograph of the shop of the non-applicant No.3 and called

concerned officials and imposed fine of Rs.5000/-. Therefore,

complaint under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code was

registered.

5. The applicant has therefore challenged registration of

the First Information Report by way of filing present application.

This Court on 06.05.2021 issued notice to the non-applicants. The

non-applicant No.1 has filed reply stating that the Investigating

Agency has recorded statement of the witnesses who were present

on the spot at the time of incident. It is stated that the salesman -

Goverdhan Kanhaiyalal Puraswami has stated in his statement

that the applicant has demanded an amount of Rs.5000/-. The

non-applicant No.3 has also filed reply stating that the applicant

had demanded an amount of Rs.5000/- and therefore, has

committed an offence under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. We have carefully considered the allegation in the First

Information Report and the reply filed by the non-applicant Nos.1

and 3. At this stage, it is necessary to consider Section 385 of the

Indian Penal Code, which reads as under :

"385. Putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion -- Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts any person in fear, or attempts to put any person in fear, of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

7. On careful perusal of the First Information Report itself,

it is clear that the non-applicant No.3 has paid an amount of

Rs.5000/- as a fine. The said fact is clear from the Annexure

No.III on page 20. Once the fact of payment of fine is brought on

record by the applicant himself, it is improbable that the applicant

would demand an amount of Rs. 5000/- from the non-applicant

No.3 for not imposing fine amount of Rs. 5000/- from the

non-applicant No.3. It appears that the non-applicant No.3 had

opened his shop though he was prohibited from opening the shop

during restrictions under Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 were in

force. Therefore, in our opinion filing of the present First

Information Report against the applicant for performing his lawful

duty is nothing but abuse of process of law. We are therefore,

satisfied that the filing of prosecution against the applicant is not a

legitimate prosecution and continuation of the same would

amount to abuse of process of Court.

8. We therefore, pass following order :

The First Information Report No.169/2021 dated

23.04.2021 registered against the applicant with the

non-applicant No.1 - Police Station for the offence punishable

under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed and set

aside against the applicant.

9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending

application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

                                  JUDGE                                       JUDGE


RGurnule