Charan S/O Sovinda Waghmare And Other vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Pso Ps ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 8771 Bom

Bombay High Court

Charan S/O Sovinda Waghmare And Other vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Pso Ps ... on 15 December, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:14271-DB


                        J-apl1744.24 final.odt                                       1/9


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


                                 CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.1744 OF 2024


                        1. Charan S/o Govinda Waghmare,
                           Aged about 52 years,
                           Occupation : Ex-MLA,
                           R/o. Tq. Mohadi, Dist. Bhandara.

                        2. Vijay Kundlik Bhure,
                           Aged about 35 years,
                           Occupation : P.A. of Ex-MLA of applicant No.1,
                           R/o Dongargaon, Tq. Mohadi, Dist. Bhandara.

                        3. Nandu @ Chandrashekhar Natthu Rahangdale,
                           Aged about 38 years,
                           Occupation : Chairman, Panchayat Samiti,
                           Tumsar, R/o Village Yerli,
                           Tq. Tumsar, Dist. Bhandara.

                        4. Amit Chandrabhan Rangari,
                           Aged about 33 years,
                           Occupation : Press reporter of Daily Newspaper
                           Navrashtra, R/o Govardhan Nagar,
                           Tumsar, Dist. Bhandara.

                        5. Dr. Shantaram Panduranji Chafale,
                           Aged about 63 years,
                           Occupation : Retired Animal Husbandry
                           Development Officer,
                           R/o Shriram Nagar, Tumsar,
                           Distt. Bhandara.

                        6.    Prashant Harishchandra Lanjewar,
                              Aged about 56 years,
                              Occupation : Agriculturist,
                              R/o MIG-28, MHADA Colony,
                              Bhandara.                                :    APPLICANTS

                                 ...VERSUS...
 J-apl1744.24 final.odt                                            2/9


State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O., P.S. Mohadi,
District : Bhandara.                            :   NON-APPLICANT

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. A.M. Chandekar, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. A.G. Mate, Additional Public Prosecutor for Non-applicant.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

CORAM                       :   URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
                                NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON    :                02nd DECEMBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON :                 15th DECEMBER, 2025.

JUDGMENT :

(Per : Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.)

1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned

counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The applicant has filed the present application under

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for

quashing of First Information Report in Crime No.289/2024 dated

12.11.2024, registered with non-applicant for the offences under

Section 189(2) and 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read

with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. The application

also prays for quashing charge-sheet No.13/2025 in the said crime

number which is filed by the prosecution after completion of the

investigation.

3. As per the contents of the First Information Report

lodged by the non-applicant, the complainant in the present matter

is a Police Personnel and was on duty of election and the Code of

Conduct was in force. On 11.11.2024 at about 8.00 p.m.

information was received from one Arvind Tirpude that at Mauza

Mandesar, illegal distribution of kits is going on under the pretext

of election. Hence, a raid was conducted and it was found that kit

was distributed and there was one Bolero Pick-Up vehicle bearing

20 bags of sweets, snacks and biscuits and three persons were

distributing the same. Hence, the offence was registered.

Thereupon, said Ashok Murkute visited the Police Station and

lodged a complaint, upon which non-cognizable offence came to be

registered. Thereafter, the applicant No.1 along with 70 to 80

persons came to the Police Station and gave a bite interview to a

Reporter. Thus, a chaos was created by the applicant No.1 who

was accompanied with the other applicants. It was then realized

that the chaos at the Police Station was created because of

complainant and the raid done by the Police Authorities about

distribution of kit. Thus, the offence in question was registered

against the applicants. It is this First Information Report and the

consequent charge-sheet which is being challenged in the present

application on the grounds stated in the said application.

4. We have heard Mr. A.M. Chandekar, learned counsel

for the applicants and Mr. A.G. Mate, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the non-applicant/State.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that bare

reading of the First Information Report in question and the

charge-sheet reveals that no offence as much less as mentioned in

the First Information Report are made out. He submits that as far

as offence under Section 223 is concerned, there is a bar for taking

cognizance of the said offence under Section 215 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 195 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure). He further submits that even offence under

Section 189 (2) regarding unlawful assembly is not made out

against the accused. He also submits that no ingredient of offence

under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act is also made out from

the reading of the First Information Report in question. He,

therefore, prays that the First Information Report and the

consequent charge-sheet be quashed and set aside.

6. The counsel for applicants has relied upon following

judgments to support his contentions :

i. C. Muniappan & others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2010 AIR (SC) 3718.

ii. Hemant Soren Vs. State of Jharkhand and others, Cr.MP No.1861/2022.

iii. Parveen Amanullah Vs. State of Bihar, 2017 (3) PLJR

iv. Charanjit Singh @ Channi Vs. State of Punjab, CRM M 453/2023.

7. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

non-applicant while opposing the contentions advanced by the

learned counsel for the applicants states that the prosecution

agency has completed the investigation and seized the CCTV

footage. It has also recorded statement of witnesses wherein active

participation of the present in commission of offence can be seen.

The statements of witnesses clearly indicates act of the present

applicants and, therefore, according to him there is no case made

out for quashing of the First Information Report and the

charge-sheet.

8. Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

states as under :

223. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant. -

(1) Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction,

(a) shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any persons lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to two thousand five hundred rupees, or with both;

(b) and where such disobedience causes or tends

to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.

Explanation: It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm.

Illustration:

An order is promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

9. This section correspondence to Section 188 of the

Indian Penal Code. There is a clear cut bar for taking cognizance of

the offence by virtue of Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (old Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure

Code). It is apparent from perusal of Section 223 of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 that for any act to constitute an offence under

this particular statute, there must be an order lawfully passed by

the public servant duly authorized in that regard. The said order

must be directed towards a person directing him to abstain from a

certain act or to take certain order with certain property in his

possession or under his management. The order must be in

knowledge of the person to whom it is directed, who despite having

the knowledge that his disobedience of the order been or is likely to

cause harm disobeys such order, resulting in the obstruction,

annoyance or injury. The cognizance of this offence has been

specifically barred by virtue of Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. As enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of M.S. Ahlawat Vs. State of Haryana and another,

reported in 2000(1) SCC, wherein the Supreme Court considered

the provisions at length and observed in para 5 that the said

provisions are mandatory and no Court has jurisdiction to take

cognizance of any offences mentioned therein, unless there is a

complaint in writing as required under that Section. The said

principle is also find a place in the case of Daulat Ram Vs. State of

Punjab, reported in AIR 1962 SC 1206. Thus, in view of the dictum

of the Supreme Court, it is clear that provisions of Section 215 of

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (old Section 195 of

the Criminal Procedure Code) are mandatory in nature. In the

instant case, no such complaint by the concerned public servant or

any officers subordinate to him as contemplated under Section 215

of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is placed on

record. It is, therefore, apparent that no offence punishable under

Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is

made out in view of the specific bar of Section 215 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

10. Furthermore, the offence under Section 189(2) (i.e. old

Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code) regarding unlawful assembly

is also not made out since the assembly of the applicants cannot be

said to be "an unlawful assembly" as there is no common object as

contemplated under the said Section. Furthermore, as far as

offence under Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act is

concerned, it is not clear from the reading of the First Information

Report in question regarding which Section i.e. 37 39 or 40 is

alleged to be breached. Even otherwise, the contingency as

mentioned in the First Information Report and the consequent

charge-sheet do not find a place either in these Sections. We,

therefore, of the considered view that continuance of proceeding

against the applicants would amount to an abuse of process of

Court. Thus, the situation would squarely fall within the laid down

parameters of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and

others, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604,

1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

11. We, therefore, pass the following order :

ORDER

(i) The application is allowed.

(ii) First Information Report in Crime No.289/2024

dated 12.11.2024 and the Charge-sheet No.13/2025, registered

with non-applicant No.1 for the offences under Sections 189(2) and

223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 135 of

the Maharashtra Police Act is quashed and set aside.

(iii) The application is disposed of in above terms.

(Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.) (Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.) wadode

Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 16/12/2025 12:48:31