Allowed

Smt Shila Deorao Bhagat and Another v. State of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Ps Sadar Dist Nagpur and Another

Bombay HC23 Aug 2022APL/1248/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed an application for quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 353, 189, and 34 IPC. The Court held that the allegations did not disclose assault or criminal force on a public servant and that Section 189 is a non-cognizable offence making FIR registration improper.

What did the court decide?

Quashed and set aside First Information Report No.410/2019 lodged under Sections 353, 189 and 34 IPC.

Smt Shila Deorao Bhagat and Another Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

920-J-APL-1248-19.odt

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1248 OF 2019

¶5

APPLICANTS:1. Smt. Shila Deorao Bhagat,
 Aged : 47 years, Occu. : (Widow)
 House Wife R/o :- Lohara Waghpur
 Road, Near Ideal Computers,
 Prajapati Nagar, Lohara,
 Yavatmal 445002.

¶6

2. Shri. Suraj Deorao Bhagat,
 Aged : 23 years, Occu. :- Student
 R/o :- Lohara Waghpur Road,
 Near Ideal Computers, Prajapati
 Nagar, Lohara, Yavatmal 445002.

¶7

V E R S U S

¶8

NON-APPLICANTS :1. The State of Maharashtra,
 Through Police Station Officer,
 Police Station, Sadar, Nagpur.

¶9

2. Mrs. Bhagyashree Bhimraoji Banayat,
 Aged about 40 years, Occu : Director-
 Reshim Sanchanalay, 6th Floor,
 Administrative building No.2,
 Divisional Commissioner Office
 Premises, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

¶10

Shri Saurabh Bhende, Advocate for applicants.
Shri S.M.Ghodeswar, Addl.Public Prosecutorfor Non-applicant No.1.

¶11

CORAM:-MANISH PITALE AND

¶12

VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ.
DATED :-23/08/2022.

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER MANISH PITALE, J.) :

¶14

1.Heard.

¶15

2 920-J-APL-1248-19.odt

¶16

2.ADMIT.Heard finally with the consent of learned

¶17

counsel appearing for the parties.

¶18

3.By this application, the applicants have approached this
Court seeking quashing of FIR No.410/2019 dated 09/09/2019
registered with Police Station, Sadar, Nagpur for offences
punishable under Sections 353 and 189 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶19

4.Shri Saurabh Bhende, learned counsel appearing for
applicants invited our attention to the oral report leading to the
registration of FIR and submitted that even if the contents of the
report were to be taken as it is, the ingredients of the said offence,
are not made out. He emphasized upon the backdrop in which the
said incident took place. It is pointed out that the applicant had
reached the office of non-applicant No.2 (informant) in order to
demand the benefits of Assured Promotion Scheme which,
according to the applicant No.1, were rightfully due to her
deceased husband. The applicant No.2, being her son, had
accompanied her to the office of non-applicant No.2.

¶20

5.It is submitted that when the applicants gathered
information that the said benefits were being wrongly denied,

¶21

3 920-J-APL-1248-19.odt

¶22

they had approached the office of non-applicant No.2 to vent their
grievance. It was submitted that the allegations made in the oral
report do not make out the ingredients of offences punishable
under Sections 353 and 189 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

6.On 28/11/2019, this Court issued notice in the present
application and granted interim order to the effect that the charge
sheet shall not be filed against the applicants without leave of this
Court.

¶24

7.The non-applicant No.1 - State is represented by Shri
S.M.Ghodeswar, learned APP and the non-applicant No.2 has
chosen not to appear before this Court, despite service.

¶25

8. Shri S. M. Ghodeswar, learned APP for the State

¶26

submitted that the statement made in the oral report warranted
investigation for the said offence and that this Court may not
interfere with the same.

¶27

9.We have carefully perused the contents of oral report,
which led to the registration of FIR. We find that the allegations
are principally made against the applicant No.1, who is widow of
the deceased employee of the office, wherein the non-applicant

¶28

4 920-J-APL-1248-19.odt

¶29

No.2 was serving as a Director. The applicant No.1 seems to have
expressed her dissatisfaction at the denial of rightful claim under
the scheme. It is in this backdrop that she appears to have rushed
to the cabin of non-applicant No.2. It is evident from the report
itself that the applicant No.2 did not enter the cabin of non-
applicant No.2.

¶30

10.Despite the acts attributed to applicant No.1 in the
presence of non-applicant No.2, we find that the said action
attributed to her would still fall short of the ingredients necessary
for invoking Sections 353 and 189 of the Indian Penal Code, as the
said Section pertains to the assault on public servant during
discharge of his duties.

¶31

11.We are of the opinion that to invoke the aforesaid
provisions, there has to be an assault or use of criminal force on
the public servant.

¶32

12.In this case, even if the contents of the oral report are
to be taken as it is, it cannot be said that there is even an
allegation that the applicants, particularly applicant No.1 assaulted
or used criminal force against non-applicant No.2 to deter her
from performing her duty.

¶33

5 920-J-APL-1248-19.odt

¶34

13.Shri S. M. Ghodeswar, learned APP submitted that the
contents of oral report were enough to demonstrate threat or use
of force and accordingly, offence under Section 189 of the Indian
Penal Code is registered against the applicants. Even in the said
submission of learned APP is accepted, we find that the offence
under Section 189 of the IPC is a non-cognizable offence and
therefore, FIR could not have been registered in that context.

¶35

14.In view of the above, we are of the opinion that present
application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, application is
allowed in terms of Prayer Clause (i), which reads as follows :-

¶36

"(i)quash and set aside the First Information
report instituted by the non-applicant no.1 on
09.09.2019 bearing No.410/2019 on the basis of
the complaint made at the behest of the non-
applicant no.2 against the applicants for the
offences punishable under Section 353 and 189
read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860."

¶37

[VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.]

¶38

 [MANISH PITALE, J.]

¶39

Choulwar

¶40

VITHAL Digitally signed byVITHAL MAROTRAO MAROTRAO CHOULWAR CHOULWAR Date: 2022.08.2518:28:39 +0530

Smt Shila Deorao Bhagat and Another v. State of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Ps Sadar Dist Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shila Deorao Bhagat and Another v. State of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Ps Sadar Dist Nagpur 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

Sunil Samadhan Dhandar Vs the State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O. of P.S. Kholapur, Amravati, Tq. and Dist. Amravati.

Harish Chandumal Bajaj and 3 Others Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Gadge Nagar, Amravati and 2 Others

Tarkesh S/O Bharat Mhalas and 2 Others Vs State of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Ps Washim, Distwashim and Another

S.D.P.L. and C.C.C.P.L. through Partner Sanjay Arvind Chiddarwar Vs Public Works Department, through Principal Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Mahfooz Ali S/O Yusuf Ali Mirsahab and 3 Others Vs the State Ofmha. Thr. Pso Ps Gadgenagar Dist.Amravati and Another

S.D.P.L. and C.C.C.P.L. through Partner Sanjay Arvind Chiddarwar Vs Public Works Department, through Principal Secretary, Mumbai and Others