Bombay High Court

Nitin Suresh Kale And 4 Others vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps ... on 7 November, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:11604-DB

                                         1                     J APL-758-2020.odt



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.758 OF 2020

               APPLICANTS       : 1. Nitin Suresh Kale,
                                      aged about 41 years, Occ: Service, R/o Plot
                                      No.A-21, New Kailash Nagar, Bhagwan
                                      Nagar, Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur.

                                  2. Lalita Ramesh Meshram,
                                      aged about 49 years, Occ: Service, R/o
                                      D-72/4,    Prakash   Nagar      Colony,
                                      Khaparkheda, Nagpur.

                                  3. Satish Madhukar Dudhane,
                                      aged about 36 years, Occ: Service, R/o 259,
                                      Mhalgi Nagar, Freedom Fighter Colony,
                                      Hudkeshwar Road, Rajapeth, Nagpur.

                                  4. Shankar Vilas Puranik,
                                      aged about 37 years, Occ: Service, R/o Near
                                      Mahadev Mandir, Babupeth Ward no.3,
                                      Chandrapur, Dist. Chandrapur.

                                  5. Rajani Udaram Kargaonkar,
                                      aged about 44 years, Occ: Service, R/o 209,
                                      New Narsala Road, Behind Besa Powerhouse,
                                      Shri Mahalaxmi Nagar, Hudkeshwar Bk.,
                                      Mhalginagar, Nagpur.

                                      ..VERSUS..
               NON-APPLICANTS   : 1. State of Maharashtra, through Police
                                     Station   Officer,   Police  Station
                                     Khaparkheda, Dist. Nagpur.
                                  2. Homeshwar K. Pawar,
                                     aged about 56 years, Occ: Service, office
                                     at Tahsil Office, Saoner, Khaparkheda,
                                     Dist. Nagpur.
                                  3. Sthanik Kantratdar Kalyan Association,
                                     Khaparkheda, through its President,
                                     Shri. Ashok M. Ramteke, aged about 60
                                                          2                                 J APL-758-2020.odt



                                                   years, office at Ward no.5, Golbazar,
                                                   Khaparkheda, Tah. Saoner, Distt.
                                                   Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A. M. Ghare, Advocate for Applicants.
Ms S. Dhote, Addl. P. P. for Non-Applicant/State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM                                     : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
                                            NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON                               :     14th OCTOBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON                             :     7th NOVEMBER, 2025.

JUDGMENT (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE)

. Heard.

2. Admit. Heard finally by the consent of learned

counsels appearing for the parties.

3. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr. P

C.") seeking to quash and set aside the First Information Report

(FIR) No. 0501 of 2020 dated 14.08.2020 registered with non-

applicant No.1 i.e. Police Station Khaparkheda, District Nagpur

Rural at the instance of non-applicant No.2.

4. In the said First Information Report, the applicants

herein have been accused of committing an offence punishable 3 J APL-758-2020.odt

under Sections 188, 269 and 270 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "I.P.C.") along with

Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. As per the

allegations made in the First Information Report, the applicants

herein committed the offences stated supra by violating the order

promulgated by public servant at Thermal Power Station,

Khaparkheda and more particularly, at the office named as

Soudamini during Covid - 19 period. It is further stated in the First

Information Report that the applicants, without keeping social

distancing and without putting a mask on their face, have celebrated

the function of birthday, and therefore, they have committed the

said offences. It is this First Information Report which is challenged

in the present application filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

5. We have heard Mr. Ajay Ghare, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the applicants as well as Ms. Sneha Dhote,

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Non-Applicant/State.

6. Mr. A. M. Ghare, learned counsel for the applicants,

submits that the First Information Report is lodged out of

vengeance and that it is only the non-applicant No.3 who is 4 J APL-758-2020.odt

instrumental in doing so. It is relevant to point out that the

President of non-applicant No.3 is in illegal occupation of a shop

blocks bearing No.6, 8, 9 and 10 situated at Gol Bazar in the

housing colony owned by Khaparkheda Thermal Power Station.

Since, the said Thermal Power Station was contemplating an action

of recovery and possession of the said shop, the President of non-

applicant No. 3 filed a petition bearing No. LD-VC-CW No.205 of

2020 before this Court terming it as a public interest litigation.

However, the said petition was dismissed by this Court vide its order

dated 21.08.2020. In the backdrop of these facts, the said President

of non-applicant No.3/Sthanik Kantratdar Kalyan Association was

holding a grudge against the officers of Khaparkheda Thermal

Power Station and only with an ulterior motive to pressurize the

officers and dissuade the Khaparkheda Thermal Power Station from

taking action against him, the First Information Report came to be

filed. It is therefore the submission of Mr. A M. Ghare, learned

counsel for the applicants that the action is vindictive in nature and

no offence is made out much less in the complaint or in the First

Information Report.

5 J APL-758-2020.odt

7. On the other hand, Ms. S. S. Dhote, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the contentions

raised by the learned counsel for the applicants and stated that a bare

perusal of the allegations made in the First Information Report

would reveal that an offence has been made out.

8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

controversy involved in the present matter and perused the

documents on record. It is worthwhile to mention here that the State

of Maharashtra vide Government Resolution dated 20.09.2022

have issued a direction to withdraw the proceedings initiated under

the Disaster Management Act, 1897 between the period

21.03.2022 to 31.03.2022. Accordingly, an order was passed by this

Court on 06.01.2023 granting time to the State of Maharashtra to

verify the position and whether the First Information Report has

been forwarded to the Committee constituted as per the said

Government Resolution referred supra. Time and again, the matter

was adjourned thereafter. A reply affidavit of the State of

Maharashtra also bears the reference of the said Government

Resolution mentioned supra.

6 J APL-758-2020.odt

9. This Court vide its order dated 16.04.2024 observed

that as to whether the State would consider and satisfy itself about

the case of the applicants falling within the parameters laid down in

the Government Resolution. However, in-spite of sufficient

opportunity, nothing concrete has been placed on record as to

whether the matter has been placed before the Committee

constituted under the said Government Resolution. This Court had,

vide order dated 30.09.2025, granted time to the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor to make an appropriate statement.

However, as no such statement was made even on 14.10.2025, we

proceeded to hear the matter on merits. As far as the offence under

Section 188 of the I.P.C. is concerned, we have already taken a view

in Criminal Application No.323 of 2025 that the said offence is not

made out since Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. restrains the Court from

taking cognizance of any offence punishable under the said section

except on a complaint made in writing of the public servant

concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is

administratively subordinate.

7 J APL-758-2020.odt

10. Admittedly, in the present case, the complainant is

non-applicant No.2 who is not administratively subordinate to the

Collector nor he has been duly authorized for filing the said

complaint. Thus, the offence under Section 188 of the I.P.C. is not

made out. As far as the offence under Section 51(b) of the Disaster

Management Act, 2005 is concerned, Section 60 of the said Act

clearly speaks about bar of taking cognizance without a complaint

made by the authorities mentioned in Clause (a) of the said Section.

Thus, there is an express bar for taking cognizance of the offence

except on a complaint as provided under Section 60. It is thus clear

that even offence under Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management

Act is also not made out. As far as the offences under Section 269

and 270 of the I.P.C. is concerned, there is no material in the First

Information Report indicating that the offences have been

committed by the accused persons i.e. the applicants herein. In our

view, the offences under those Sections are also not made out. This

situation is squarely covered within the well established parameters

of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State

of Harayana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. , 1992 AIR 604 8 J APL-758-2020.odt

and more particularly within parameter No. 8.1., which reads as

under :

"(a) 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 ac- cused;

      (b)      .........

      (c)      .........

      (d)      .........

      (e)      .........

(f)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 institu- tion 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;

(g) ........."

11. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered

opinion that the continuance of the proceedings against the

applicants would be nothing but abuse of process of law. We,

therefore, pass the following order :