Raosaheb Nivrutti Jejurkar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9140 Bom

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD


               CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1134 OF 2021


                    Raosaheb Nivrutti Jejurkar,
                    Age 50 yrs., Occ. Service,
                    R/o Mali Galli, at Post Dadh,
                    Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar.

                                                           ... Petitioner

                                  ... Versus ...

           1        The State of Maharashtra,
                    Through Police Station, Loni,
                    Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar.

           2        Santosh Ramnath Lande,
                    Age Major, Occ. Police Constable,
                    R/o Loni Police Station,
                    Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar.


                                                           ... Respondents
                                       ...
           Mrs. Rashmi S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner
               Mr. A.M. Phule, APP for respondent Nos.1 and 2
                                       ...

                                CORAM :      SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
                                             RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.

                                RESERVED ON :           02nd AUGUST, 2022
                                PRONOUNCED ON : 13th SEPTEMBER, 2022





                                         2                               Cri.WP_1134_2021_Jd



JUDGMENT :              (PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)




1              Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Advocates

for the parties finally, by consent.


2              The petitioner is seeking quashment of the First Information

Report lodged against him at the behest of respondent No.2, who was the

Police Constable. The First Information Report was registered vide Crime

No.300/2021 with Loni Police Station, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar on

17.07.2021, for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 323, 504, 506,

188, 332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, under Sections 37(1) and 37(3) of

the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and under Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the

Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. After the investigation charge sheet has been

filed vide Regular Criminal Case No.714/2021 before learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Rahata and, therefore, the petitioner is seeking

quashment of the First Information Report as well as charge sheet.

3 Heard learned Advocate Mrs. Rashmi S. Kulkarni for the

petitioner and learned APP Mr. A.M. Phule for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

4 It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the petitioner that

perusal of the petition would show that some incident is stated to have taken

3 Cri.WP_1134_2021_Jd

place between the informant and accused No.1. Though the surname of

accused No.1 is same that of the applicant, there is nothing on record which

has been produced on record by the prosecution that the petitioner has any

right in the said shop. Accused No.1 runs a grocery shop by name " ohjHknz

fdjk.kk nqdku o tujy LVksvlZ". According to the police, accused No.1 had kept

open his shop around 16.45 hours in contravention of the order passed by

District Collector, Ahmednagar, as it was still a Covid situation and there were

restrictions imposed. Accused No.1 had behaved arrogantly with the

informant and another police person along with him and then it is stated that

accused No.1 had called accused Nos.2 and 3. Those three persons had

manhandled the informant and had given threat that they would be involved

in false case. Informant says that many persons from the village then

gathered along with the petitioner and petitioner is a News Reporter. It is

then stated that petitioner told the informant that when other shops are open

they should also be closed and then the shop of the accused No.1 should be

closed. He made allegations that the informant and police are not paying

attention as to what is happening in the village. He would see how the police

take accused No.1 and by abusing he gave threat that he would see that the

informant and other police persons who were present there are suspended.

He also gave threat to give reporting of the news.

                                         4                                Cri.WP_1134_2021_Jd



5              The charge sheet would show that only statements of witnesses

who are police have been recorded and no statement of the other persons

who had gathered at the spot has been recorded. The acts alleged against

the petitioner do not attract the provisions of Sections 353, 332, 323 of the

Indian Penal Code and also the other sections which have been invoked. It

would be a futile exercise to ask him to face the trial.

6 Learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied on Fakruddin

Ahmad Lohar vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, 2017 ALL M.R. (Cri.)

3550, wherein the Division Bench of this Court after considering the facts of

the case and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Manik Taneja and

another vs. State of Karnataka and another, AIR 2015 SC (Supp.) 671 has

held that for offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code the accused

should have assaulted the public servant or used the criminal force with

intention to prevent or deter the said public servant from discharging his duty

as such public servant. Further, it is held that to attract the offence under

Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code essential ingredients are that the

accused person should have committed offence of criminal intimidation.

Here, in this case, both are absent.

7              Per contra, the learned APP strongly objected the writ petition





                                          5                                 Cri.WP_1134_2021_Jd

and submitted that as per the prosecution story, along with the informant

other police were also present at the spot and their statements have been

recorded and all of them have stated that such incident has taken place. If at

all the petitioner is taking defence of alibi, then, it is for him to prove it and it

cannot be considered here. The language which was allegedly used by the

petitioner was sufficient to attract Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal

Code. In fact, if he was not concerned with the shop of accused No.1, he

ought not to have interfered. The evidence that is collected shows that

informant has sustained two simple injuries. No doubt, Sections 353 and 332

may be against the accused Nos.1 to 3, but, at the same time, the present

accused by his acts had committed offence under Sections 504, 506 of the

Indian Penal Code. This is not a fit case where the First Information Report

as well as charge sheet should be quashed and set aside.

8 Since the prosecution story is already narrated, it is not

reproduced. When the informant was on patrolling duty along with other

police persons they had found that accused No.1's shop was open. When

they asked him to close it down, the further incident has taken place. No

doubt, at that time, it appears that the present petitioner was not present and

he came a little bit late along with other persons from the village. But then,

what the petitioner had stated has been told by the informant as well as other

6 Cri.WP_1134_2021_Jd

witnesses whose statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure have been recorded. Merely because the statements of the

villagers who were present at the spot have not been recorded we cannot at

this stage quash the First Information Report as well as entire proceedings.

Further, we cannot discard the statements of the police persons, whose

statements have been recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure by branding them as interested witnesses. A police person is

equally competent witness and his evidence will have to be scrutinized by the

Trial Courts at the time of the trial and Judgment. Whether it was necessary

for the petitioner to speak at that moment, was a question, and even if he

would have spoken, what could have been the language. He could not have

abused the police persons on duty nor he could have given threat to them by

saying that since he is a News Reporter he would meet the Superintendent of

Police and see that they are terminated or dismissed from service. Definitely,

that amounts to criminal intimidation and the abuses those have been stated

would attract Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. At this stage, this Court

is required to consider the prima facie case and perusal of the entire charge

sheet it can be certainly said that there is prima facie evidence against the

petitioner. If at all he wants to take defence of alibi, it is for him to prove it

at the time of trial. Another fact to be noted is that the incident has been

videographed and the footage of the said videograph appears to have been

7 Cri.WP_1134_2021_Jd

seized. Even the certificate under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act

has been given by the appropriate person. Therefore, when there is evidence

against the petitioner, this cannot be considered to be a fit case where this

Court should exercise constitutional powers under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. The case does not fall within the parameters laid down

in State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in AIR

1992 SC 604. The decisions relied by the learned Advocate for the petitioner

cannot be disputed, however, the facts of the case do attract ingredients of

Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

Further, it can also be observed that the charge would be framed by the Trial

Court. Taking into consideration the role allegedly played by a particular

accused and at that point of time the petitioner may point out which section

is made out and which ingredients are not fulfilled, so that the charge should

not be framed against him under that section. Certainly, when case is made

out in respect of certain offences, the entire charge sheet as well as First

Information Report cannot be quashed and set aside. Writ petition stands

dismissed. Rule stands discharged.

( Rajesh S. Patil, J. )                    ( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J. )
agd