Partly allowed

Milind Pralhad Dhoke and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC16 Apr 2016APPLN/5558/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application seeking quashing of proceedings under Sections 353 and 506 IPC and Sections 93, 94, 96 of the Maharashtra Irrigation Act, the High Court held that the FIR lacked allegations of assault or intimidation. The court quashed IPC proceedings and allowed prosecution to continue under the Irrigation Act.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings under Sections 353 and 506 IPC were quashed; prosecution allowed to proceed under Sections 93, 94, and 96 of the Maharashtra Irrigation Act, 1976.

Milind Pralhad Dhoke and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

{1}

¶2

cri application 5558.14.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5558 OF 2014

¶5

1 Milind Pralhad Dhoke Age: 43 years, occu: service

¶6

2 Ravindra Shivdas Thakur age: 47 years, occu: service Both r/o Mahatma Phule KrishiVidyapeeth, Rahuri, Tq. Rahuri, District: Ahmednagar

¶7

3 Subhash Govind Dalvi, Age; 47 years,occu: business, R/o Digras, Tqluka Rahuri, District: Ahymednagr Petitioners Versus

¶8

1 The State of Maharashtra (through Rahuri Police Station Taluka Rahuri, District: Ahmednagar)

¶9

2 Pradip Radhakrishna Naik, Age: 56 years, occu: service As sectional Engineer, R/o Mula Right Canal, Rahuri, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar Respondents

¶10

Mr.S.S. Jadhavar advocate for the petitioners Mr.K.S. Patil, Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1

¶11

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & K.L. WADANE, JJ

¶12

(Date : 16^th APRIL, 2016.)

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶14

(Per: R.M. Borde, J)

¶15

{2} cri application 5558.14.odt

¶16

1 Rule.

¶17

2 Heard. By consent of the parties, the application is taken for final decision, at admission stage.

¶18

3 The instant petition is presented seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings, initiated against the applicants, in pursuance of filing of the first information report (FIR) by respondent No.2, registered at Police Station Rahuri bearing No.I-259/2014 for offences punishable under sections 353, 506, of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as sections 93, 94 and 96 of The Maharashtra Irrigation Act, 1976.

¶19

4 The complainant is a sectional Engineer functioning in the Irrigation Department, whereas the accused are the employees of Mahatma Phule Krushi Vidyapeeth. There was some dispute in respect of blockage of a water distributory. It is alleged that the accused refused to remove the impediments which had an effect of blocking flow of water in the distributory.

¶20

5 On perusal of the FIR, there does not appear to be any allegation referable to ingredients of an offence punishable under section 353 or 506 of IPC. However, on perusal of the FIR and material collected by the prosecution, there appear allegations against the accused under section 93, 94 and 96 of the

¶21

{3} cri application 5558.14.odt

¶22

Maharashtra Irrigation Act, 1976. It is pointed out by the learned APP that the charge sheet has been presented and as such no interference be caused.

¶23

6 We have perused the first information report as well as the statement of the witnesses annexed to the charge sheet. On perusal of the papers, it transpires that there are absolutely no allegations made by the informant as well as any of the witnesses in respect of assault or use of criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty. Similarly, there are absolutely no allegations as regards the criminal intimidation by any of the accused.

¶24

7 In this view of the matter, prosecution of the petitioners for offences punishable under sections 353 and 506 IPC is uncalled for. The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners, in respect of offences punishable under sections 353 and 506 IPC stands quashed. It would be open for the prosecution to proceed against the accused for the alleged commission of offences under sections 93, 94 and 96 of the Maharashtra Irrigation Act.

¶25

8 Rule is made absolutely to the extent as specified above.

¶26

(K.L. WADANE, J) (R.M.BORDE, J)

¶27

vbd

Milind Pralhad Dhoke and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Milind Pralhad Dhoke and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shesherao S/O Bapurao Dombe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gangadhar S/O Haribhau Andhure and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jagannath S/O. Khanderao Jadhav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kailas Shankar Navekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Devidas S/O Lokdoji Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Other

Sayyad Haroon S/O Sayyad Rauf Vs Sadiq S/O Babamiya Mulani Inamdar and Other