The Chief Officer, Pandharpur vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 11265 Bom

2023:BHC-AS:33469-DB


                              Harish


                                                                           APL 617 of 2016.odt

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 617 OF 2016

                1. The Chief Officer, Pandharpur
                Municipal Council, having office at
                Navi Peth, Pandharpur, 413304
                District- Solapur                                   ...Applicant
                       V/s.
                1. The State of Maharashtra
                (Through Senior Police Inspector)
                Pandharpur City Police Station,
                Pandharpur.

                2. Vikram Waman Kolekar
                Residing at Kolekar Vasti, Gursale,
                Tal- Pandharpur, Dist- Solapur.                     ...Respondents

                Mr. Sarang S. Aradhye for the Applicant.
                Ms. M. H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent-State.

                                              CORAM       : A.S. GADKARI &
                                                            SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 7th OCTOBER, 2023.

PRONOUNCED ON : 2nd NOVEMBER, 2023.

JUDGMENT : (PER SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.)

1. By this Application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the

Applicant seeks quashing of CR. No. 0332 of 2017 registered with

Pandharpur City Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section

295 of the Indian Penal Code.

1/ 4 Harish

APL 617 of 2016.odt

2. Heard Mr. Sarang S. Aradhye, learned Advocate for the

Applicant and learned APP for the Respondent-State. Despite service,

none appears for Respondent No.2.

3. Mr. Aradhye, learned Advocate for the Applicant submits

that, at the relevant time, the Applicant was the Chief officer of

Pandharpur Municipal Council and was discharging his official duty by

implementing the orders passed by this Court in Public Interest

Litigation No. 155 of 2011. He would submit that, the allegation in the

FIR is that, the illegal hoardings which were erected in Pandharpur city

were removed by the Applicant. That, the act attributed to the Applicant

was undertaken while implementing the order of this Court in Public

Interest Litigation No. 155 of 2011 which dealt with the issue of erection

of illegal hoardings. He submitted that, the hoardings of Rajmata

Ahilyadevi Holkar were erected by the Respondent No.2 and his

supporters without obtaining permission of Pandharpur Municipal

Council. He submits that, taking the FIR as it is, the ingredients of

Section 295 are not made out.

4. We have considered the submissions and perused the record.

5. The Applicant is the Chief Officer of a Municipal Council and

is entrusted with statutory duties. The allegation in the FIR is that, on

2/ 4 Harish

APL 617 of 2016.odt

28th May, 2016, the Respondent No.2 and his supporters had erected

digital boards to celebrate the birth anniversary of Rajmata Ahilyadevi

Holkar. It is alleged that, under the directions of the Applicant, the

employees of the Municipal Council had removed the digital boards and

as such, the religious sentiments of the Dhangar community have been

hurt.

6. It needs to be noted that, pursuant to the various orders

passed by this Court in Public Interest Litigation No. 155 of 2011, the

Applicant in his capacity as Chief Officer was discharging his official

duties of removal of illegal/unauthorized hoarding. The FIR does not

indicate/disclose that, any permission was obtained from the Municipal

Council for erection of the digital boards. Against the backdrop of the

allegation in the FIR, if we peruse Section 295 of IPC, the said offence is

attracted when any person destroys or damages or defiles any place of

worship or any object held sacred by any class of persons with the

intention of insulting the religion of any class of person or with the

knowledge thereto.

7. In the present case, the act attributed is the removal of the

digital boards which by any stretch of imagination cannot be construed

as a place of worship or object held sacred by the concerned community.

3/ 4 Harish

APL 617 of 2016.odt

We find complete absence of mens rea as the Applicant was discharging

his official duty and was implementing Orders passed by this Court.

8. Considering the above act attributed to the Applicant, we do

not find that the allegations attract the ingredients of Section 295 of

IPC. In our opinion, the continuation of the proceeding would amount to

sheer abuse of process of law. Resultantly, Application is allowed in

terms of prayer clause (b), which reads thus:

(b) That by appropriate orders of this Hon'ble Court, First Information Report (F.I.R.) being F.I.R. No. 0332 filed/lodged against the Applicant at the instance of Respondent No. 2 by the Respondent No. 1 at Pandharpur city Police Station dated 28.05.2016 under section 295 of Indian Penal Code, be quashed and set aside.

9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

(SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

4/ 4 Signed by: Harish V. Chaudhari Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 04/11/2023 11:00:35