[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Aniket Manohar Wakpanjar And Others. vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso, Ps ... on 10 February, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:2282-DB
1 15.APL.1360-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1360 OF 2025
1. Aniket Manohar Wakpanjar,
Aged about 24 yrs., Occ. Education,
2. Bhushan s/o Rajendra Khandare,
Aged about 22 yrs., Occ. Student,
3. Rohit s/o Suresh Raibole,
Aged about 22 yrs., Occ. Student,
4. Ashish s/o Dhanraj Mohod,
Aged about 29 yrs., Occ. Student,
5. Shubham Vijay Raibole,
Aged about 29 yrs., Occ. Student,
6. Ajay s/o Ashok Abhyankar,
Aged about 24 yrs., Occ. Student,
7. Shubham s/o Ashok Abhyankar,
Aged about 27 yrs., Occ. Student,
8. Sandesh s/o Nandu Sirsat,
Aged about 18 yrs., Occ. Student,
9. Nikhil s/o Shrikrishna Raibole,
Aged about 23 yrs., Occ. Student,
10. Yash Baliram Dhole,
Aged about 19 yrs., Occ. Student,
11. Shreyas Shrikrishna Samdure,
Aged 21 yrs., Occ. Student,
2 15.APL.1360-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
12. Aditya Manohar Wakpanjar,
Aged about 22 yrs., Occ. Student,
13. Adiya Balkrishna Raibole,
Aged about 17 yrs., Occ. Student,
14. Nived Nandu Raibole,
Aged about 17 yrs., Occ. Student,
15. Anurag Siddarth Wankhede,
Aged about 34 yrs., Occ. Student,
16. Sunil Raghunath Rambole,
Aged about 42 yrs., Occ. Student,
All R/o Pandhari (Khanampur)
Taluka Anjangaon Surji District
Amravati. APPLICANTS
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Thr. Police Station Officer,
Anjangaon District Amravati (Rural). NON-APPLICANT
2. Arjun s/o Sadashiv Mundhe DELETED
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. P.R. Atkare, Advocate a/w Mr. S.G. Karmarkar, Advocate for
the Applicants.
Ms. M.A. Barabde, APP for the Non-applicant No.1/State.
-----------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATED : 10th FEBRUARY, 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
3 15.APL.1360-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Heard finally by the consent of learned
Counsel for the Applicants and learned APP for the
Non-applicant No.1/State.
3. The present Application is preferred by the
Applicants under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for quashing of the First Information
Report in connection with Crime No.160/2024 registered with
Police Station Anjangaon Surji, District Amravati for the offence
punishable under Sections 188, 186, 109 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, and
consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing RCC
No. 119/2025 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Anjangaon Surji, District Amravati.
4. The crime is registered on the basis of the report
lodged by the Police Naik Arjun Sadashiv Mundhe alleging that
the Applicants breached the order passed by the Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Daryapur, and therefore, requested for the action
against them. It is further submitted that, on 31.01.2024 in
4 15.APL.1360-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
Village Pandhri, Tal. Anajangaon Surji some of the villagers have
installed a temporary gate and named it by posting the photo of
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. Due to this act, there was a dispute
between two communities of the society. On 06.03.2024, Gram
Sabha was called and the peoples from one of the communities
kept Whats App status on their mobile, that they are leaving the
Village, therefore there was every likelihood of breach of public
peace due to the dispute between the two communities of the
society. Therefore, as there was strong apprehension of breach
of public tranquility, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Daryapur
passed an order by invoking Section 144 of Cr.P.C., and thereby
declared curfew and prohibition of assembly from 06.03.2024
to 08.03.2024. The order passed by the Sub Divisional
Magistrate was communicated to the public at large through
megaphone and it was also informed that in case of breach of
order, legal action would be initiated against the guilty persons.
Despite the same, the present Applicants were the members of
the Mob who gathered together by disobeying the order of the
Sub Divisional Magistrate and thereby committed an offence.
On the basis of the said report Police have registered the crime
against the present Applicants.
5 15.APL.1360-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
5. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants who
submitted that, Section 188 of IPC deals with disobedience to
order duly promulgated by public servant and an order
promulgated by a public servant lawfully to be published, which
is absent in the present case. He submitted that, as far as
promulgation is concerned, there is no evidence collected by the
investigating agency to show that it was communicated to the
public at large, and therefore, the ingredients of the offence are
not made out.
6. In order to attract Section 188 of IPC the ingredients
which are required are not established by the prosecution, and
therefore, no prima facie case is made out. He submitted that,
as far as Section 186 of IPC deals with obstructing public
servant in discharge of public functions, there are no specific
allegations as far as the present Applicants are concerned and
on the basis of omnibus, general and sweeping allegations, the
Applicants are arraigned as an accused. In view of that, no
prima facie case is made out against the present Applicants. He
also invited my attention towards Section 37(1)(3) of the
Maharashtra Police Act and submitted that, in view of Section
6 15.APL.1360-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
37(1)(3) the promulgation and the publication of the said order
communicating to the public at large is required, which is
absent in the present case, and therefore, prima facie offence is
not made out against the present Applicants. Therefore, power
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the
proceeding against the present Applicants.
7. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said
contentions and submitted that the recitals of the FIR and the
statements of witnesses itself shows that the same was
published by way of megaphone, and therefore, the prima facie
case is made out. The Applicants were the members of group,
gathered together, disobeying the order which was already
promulgated by the public servant, and therefore, the
Application deserves to be rejected.
8. On hearing both the sides and on perusal of the
entire investigation papers it reveals that, as there was
prevention of disturbance of the public peace, the Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Daryapur has issued an order and which
allegedly promulgated. In order to attract Section 188 of IPC,
the following ingredients have to be proved namely; (1) that
7 15.APL.1360-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
there must be an order promulgated by the public servant; (2)
that such public servant is lawfully empowered to promulgate
and (3) that the person with knowledge of such order and being
directed by such order to abstain from doing certain act or to
take certain order with certain property in his possession and
under his management has disobeyed and for that such
disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or
injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person
lawfully employed or danger to human life, health or safety or
causes or tends to cause a riot or affray.
9. In the light of the above said requirements, if the
allegations levelled against the present Applicants are
concerned, only allegation is that they gathered together. As far
as there was any attempt by them and the act of said mob was
annoyed to any person or there was any risk to the person
lawfully employed or there was any danger to human life,
health or safety is nowhere stated by any of the witnesses. As far
as the promulgation is concerned, the statements of witnesses
nowhere shows that it was published and it was communicated
to the public at large and the persons who gathered in the
8 15.APL.1360-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
Village who were having knowledge of such order and they
have intentionally disobeyed the said order. Thus, in absence of
ingredients it cannot be said that the prima facie offence is
made out against the present Applicants. As far as the prima
facie case is concerned, admittedly there is no specific allegation
against the present Applicants that they have made any attempt
to obstruct or to annoy anybody or has created or done certain
act which creates a risk to any person lawfully employed or
there was danger to human life, health or safety, and therefore,
the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are be exercised for
quashing of the FIR.
10. In the present case considering the parameters laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Harayana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 AIR 604,
which reads as under:
"(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.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
9 15.APL.1360-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which
no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding 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. In the light of the above parameters laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is a fit case wherein the powers can
be exercised. In view of that, the Application deserves to be
allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.
10 15.APL.1360-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
ORDER
i. Criminal Application is allowed.
ii. The First Information Report in connection with
Crime No. 160/2024 registered with Police Station
Anjangaon Surji, District Amravati for the offence
punishable under Sections 188, 186, 109 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the
Maharashtra Police Act, and consequent proceeding
arising out of the same bearing RCC No. 119/2025,
are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of
present Applicants.
12. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
S.D.Bhimte
Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 11/02/2026 16:47:39
