Bombay High Court
Sadique Shah S/O Ahmed Shah vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps ... on 26 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:9826-DB
41 apl no.497.24.doc
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 497 OF 2024
1. Sadique Shah s/o Ahmed Shah
Aged 43 years,
Occupation : Services, APPLICANT
R/o Quarter No.N-18, SRPF Group
No.4, Hingna Road, Nagpur
District Nagpur
// V E R S U S //
1. The State of Maharashtra, NON-APPLICANTS
Through its Police Station Officer,
Police Station MIDC, Nagpur
2. Mr. Dilip Nirpen Mandal, Amendment carried out as per
Police Inspector, SRPF Group Court order dated
17/04/2024.
No.6, Dhule, State Disaster
Response Force, Dhule
District Dhule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Raheel Anwar J. Mirza, Advocate for the applicant.
Mrs Shamsi Haider, APP forState.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J. AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
JUDGMENT CLOSED ON: 20.09.2025
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON:
J U D G M E N T :
(PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)
1. Heard.
41 apl no.497.24.doc
2. ADMIT. Heard finally by the consent of learned
counsel for the parties.
3. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code challenging the final Report No.72/2021
dated 27.04.2021 arising out of FIR crime No.1043/2020 dated
30.12.2020 and consequent Criminal Case bearing Summery
Criminal Case No.445/2025 pending before learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class Hingana. The said FIR is filed for offence
punishable under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code which
speaks about affray.
4. It is alleged in the FIR that one Dilip Narain Mandal, a
Police Sub Inspector of SRPF lodged a report stating that on
29.12.2020 when he was on duty at SRPF Camp he received an
information that the applicant and the accused No.2 Ashishkumar
Tiwari were quarrelling with each other. He therefore, went to the
spot and saw the applicant and accused No.2 were blaming each
other and fighting and hurling abuses at each other. Therefore, an
FIR was lodged as stated above. It is this FIR and the consequent
41 apl no.497.24.doc
charge-sheet as also summery Criminal Case stated above which is
impugned in the present application.
5. We have heard Mr. Rahil Mirza, learned counsel for
the applicant and Ms Shamsi Haider, learned APP for the State.
We have also perused the charge-sheet filed on record.
6. Mr. Rahil Mirza, learned counsel for the applicant
submits that even assuming the allegations in the FIR to be entirely
correct, they do not make out an offence punishable under Section
160 of the I.P.C, as there is no disturbance of public peace, which is
a necessary ingredient for committing that offence. He relied on a
judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Criminal
Application (APL) No.517/2025 (Rajesh S/o Narayansingh Solanki
and ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra and another).
7. On the other hand learned APP submits that the
offence in question is clearly made out from the perusal of the
contents of the FIR and material collected by the investigating
agency.
8. In the backdrop of these facts, Section 159 of the
Indian Penal Code defines as under:-
41 apl no.497.24.doc
"159. Affray.-- When two or more persons, by
fighting in a public place disturb the public peace,
they are said to "commit an affray".
9. Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code provides for
punishment for committing an offence punishable under Section
159 of the Indian Penal Code. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
had an occasion to deal with some what identical facts and after
placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mahant Kaushalya Das Vs. The State of Madras reported in AIR
1966 SC 22 it held that offence is not made out. Relevant
paragraph of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as
under:-
1. "6................. mere causing public
inconvenience is not sufficient. Here there are no
statements of persons from the public to see even
prima facie, as to whether the public peace was
disturbed. Furthermore, the use of the word
fighting will not be sufficient as in the present case
the work used is 'Maramari'. The said fighting
should be as a result of use of force and further it
can be considered that neither in the FIR nor in
the statements under Section 161 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure or even by the Investigating
Officer, it was tried to extract as to what was the
point/reason, on which those persons were
41 apl no.497.24.doc
fighting. It also appears that though four persons
were taken in custody, there were not taken for
medical examination in order to see as to whether
the said fighting has caused any kind of hurt to
any one of them or all of them.
10. In our view, the entire record does not show that
there was disturbance to any public peace and the material in the
charge-sheet depicts that it is not sufficient to attract ingredients of
Section 159 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, it cannot be
said that applicant committing an offence punishable under
Section 160 of the Indian penal Code.
11. the situation would be squarely covered which is the
laid down parameters of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported
in AIR 1992 SCC 604 and more particularly paragraph a thereto
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 accused;"
12. We are of therefore, view that application needs to be
allowed.
41 apl no.497.24.doc
13. In view of that, we proceed to pass
following the order:-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Application is allowed.
(ii) Final Report No.72/2021 dated
27.04.2021 arising out of First Information Report
bearing No.1043/2020 dated 30.12.2020 and
consequential proceeding arising therefrom including
the Summary Criminal Case No.445/2021 pending
before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hingana
District Nagpur registered for the offences punishable
under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby
quashed and set aside against the applicant.
14. The criminal application stands disposed of.
15. Pending application/s, if any, is/are stands
disposed of.
[NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J] [ URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
manisha
Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 26/09/2025 15:46:34
