Bombay High Court
Shankarlal S/O Chandulal Tanwani vs State Of Mah. Thr. Its Officer In Charge ... on 15 January, 2024
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: Vinay Joshi
2024:BHC-NAG:665-DB
1 924A.apl.1394.23-J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1394/2023
Shankarlal S/o. Chandulal Tanwani,
Aged 53 years, Occupation : Business,
R/o. House No.392, Shankar Nagar,
Ward No.30, Pandhurna, District :
Chhindwara,
(Madhya Pradesh). ... PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra
Through its Officer-in-charge of
Police Station Sevagram,
Distt. - Wardha.
2. Food & Drug Department,
Wardha - 442 401.
Through its Food Safety Officer.
(Amended as per Court's Order ... RESPONDENT
dated 07.12.2023).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sahil S. Dewani, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. S. S. Doifode, A.P.P. for Non-applicant/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND
MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 15.01.2024
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : VINAY JOSHI, J.):-
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2 924A.apl.1394.23-J.odt
2. This is an application seeking to quash the First Information
Report vide Crime No.455 of 2023 registered with Sewagram Police Station,
District Wardha for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 272, 273,
328 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It is the applicant's case that he is having grocery shop, where
he used to sell scented tobacco. The Police have seized certain material
within the jurisdiction of Wardha District in which they arrested two
persons. During interrogation, they have disclosed that prohibited items
were purchased from the applicant's shop, which situates in the State of
Madhya Pradesh. It is the applicant's prime contention, that there is no
prohibition/restriction to sell scented tobacco in the State of Madhya
Pradesh, and thus, he cannot be connected with the alleged offence.
4. The State resisted this application by filing affidavit in reply.
Precisely, it is the contention that co-accused were found selling prohibited
articles in the State of Maharashtra. During investigation, it was revealed
that co-accused have purchased prohibited articles from the shop of
applicant, which is in the State of Madhya Pradesh. On the basis of said
statement of co-accused, applicant's complicity is unrevealed. Moreover,
co-accused have also shown the spot i.e. shop at Madhya Pradesh from
where they purchased the articles. It is not the case of the State that
scented tobacco is a prohibited articles at Madhya Pradesh State. In the
3 924A.apl.1394.23-J.odt
circumstances, the State has not pointed out as to how the applicant, who is
authorized to sell those articles in Madhya Pradesh can be made accused in
existing crime.
5. In view of that, the case is covered by the guideline Nos. (1)
and (3) as set out in paragraph 102 by the Supreme Court in the case of
State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajanlal and Ors. reported in 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335. The applicant has made out a case for invoking extraordinary
jurisdiction. In the circumstances, the application is allowed.
6. We, hereby, quashed and set aside the First Information Report
vide Crime No.455 of 2023 registered with Sewagram Police Station,
District Wardha for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 272, 273,
328 of the Indian Penal Code to the extent of present applicant only.
7. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)
RGurnule
Signed by: Mrs. R.M. MANDADE
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 18/01/2024 10:37:04
