Allowed

Yunus @ Injus Mangal Parsuwale v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Manora Police Station, Tq. Manora, Dist. Washim and Another

Bombay HC25 Aug 2022APL/185/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge Bench allowed a Criminal Application to quash an FIR and subsequent charge sheet for an offence under Section 353 IPC. Finding that the alleged act of following a vehicle at speed did not constitute assault or criminal force to deter a public servant, the Court held the offence was not made out.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 256/2021, charge sheet, and criminal case initiated against the applicant were quashed.

Yunus @ Injus Mangal Parsuwale Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

938-APL-185-22.odt

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.185 OF 2022

¶5

APPLICANT:Yunus @ Injus Mangal Parsuwale,
Aged about 47 years, Occu : Driver,
R/o at post-Lawana, Tq. Mangrulpir,
Dist. Washim.

¶6

V E R S U S

¶7

NON-APPLICANTS :1. The State of Maharashtra,
 Through P.S.O. Police Station,
 Manora, Tq. Manora,
 Dist. Washim.
(Amended as per2. Sharda Badasaheb Jadhav,
Court order dt. Aged about 31 years, Occu: Service,
22/08/22)R/o Mirkale Nagar, Sharda Niwas,
 Ahmadpur, Tq. Ahmadpur,
 Dist. Latur - 413515.

¶8

Shri A. M. Haque, Advocate for applicant.

¶9

Shri A. S. Fulzele, Additional Public Prosecutorfor Non-applicant No.1.

¶10

CORAM:-MANISH PITALE AND

¶11

VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ.
DATED :-25/08/2022.

¶12

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

¶13

1. Heard.

¶14

2.ADMIT.Heard finally with the consent of learned
counsel appearing for the parties.

¶15

3.By this application, applicant is seeking quashing of FIR
No.256/2021 dated 29/04/2021 registered at Police Station,

¶16

2 938-APL-185-22.odt

¶17

Manora, Dist. Washim for offence punishable under Section 353 of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The applicant is also seeking
quashing of charge sheet that was filed in pursuance of
investigation. Consequently, applicant is also seeking quashing of
criminal case initiated pursuant to the FIR.

¶18

4.Shri A. M. Haq, learned counsel appearing for the
applicant submits that even if the contents of the oral report
leading to the registration of FIR and the charge sheet along with
documents are to be taken as it is, the ingredients of offence
punishable under Section 353 of the IPC are not made out and
that the present application deserves to be allowed.

¶19

5.Shri A.S.Fulzele, learned APP assisted this Court by
relying upon the relevant portions of charge sheet and documents
filed on record.

¶20

6.We have perused the oral report submitted by non-
applicant No.2. She claimed as the original informant /
complainant that while working as Tahsildar, the actions
attributed to the applicant amounted to criminal force to deter her
as a public servant from discharging her duty.

¶21

3 938-APL-185-22.odt

¶22

7.We have perused the charge sheet as well as
documents filed therewith. We find that the allegation levelled
against the applicant in the present case is that he was following
the vehicle of non-applicant No.2, when she was on official duty
and that when the non-applicant No.2 tried to stop the vehicle of
the applicant, he allegedly drove away at high speed. Due to this,
non-applicant No.2 had an apprehension about the injury to her
life and limb at the hands of the applicant, which according to her,
attracted the aforesaid offence against the applicant.

¶23

8.We find that the learned counsel for the applicant is
justified in relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, in the case of Manik Taneja and another Vrs. State of
Karnataka and another, reported in(2015) 7 SCC 423, wherein
the ingredients of offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal
Code have been examined.

¶24

9. Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows :-

¶25

"353.Assault or criminal force to deter public servant
from discharge of his duty. - Whoever assaults or uses
criminal force to any person being a public servant in
the execution of his duty as such public servant, or
with intent to prevent or deter that person from

¶26

4 938-APL-185-22.odt

¶27

discharging his duty as such public servant, or in
consequence of anything done or attempted to be done
by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as
such public servant, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

¶28

10.The essential ingredients of the offence under the said
provision are that there ought to be assault or use of criminal force
against a public servant, while she is performing her duty. This
would necessarily entail action on the part of accused of using
criminal force to deter a public servant from performing her duty.

¶29

11.In the present case, even if the allegations levelled
against the applicant are accepted as it is, at worst, it could be said
that he was following the vehicle of non-applicant No.2, while she
was on duty and thereafter, he sped away.

¶30

12.We are not convinced that the ingredients of Section
353 of the Indian Penal Code are made out.

¶31

13.In view of the above, we are inclined to allow this
application. Accordingly, the application is allowed and FIR
No.256/2021 dated 29/04/2021 registered at Police Station,
Manora, Dist. Washim against the applicant is quashed.

¶32

5 938-APL-185-22.odt

¶33

Consequently, the charge sheet filed in the matter and the
criminal case initiated against the applicant are also quashed.

¶34

[VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.]

¶35

 [MANISH PITALE, J.]

¶36

Choulwar

¶37

VITHAL Digitally signed byVITHAL MAROTRAO MAROTRAO CHOULWAR CHOULWAR Date: 2022.08.2915:01:38 +0530

Yunus @ Injus Mangal Parsuwale v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Manora Police Station, Tq. Manora, Dist. Washim and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yunus @ Injus Mangal Parsuwale v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Manora Police Station, Tq. Manora, Dist. Washim and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Rambhau Mhaturkar and Another Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Dahihanda Dist.Akola and Another

Akash S/O Rajabal Yenurkar Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ballarsha Dist.Chandrapur and Another

Ramswaroop S/O Bindaprasad Kashyap and 2 Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps, Kanhan, Tah. Parshiwani, Distt. Nagpur and Another

Shaikh Imran Shaikh Kadar and 2 Others Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Nagpuri Gate Amravati and Another

Nishant S/O Nanasaheb Wankhede Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Gadge Nagar Amravati Dist.Amravati and Another

Manohar @ Kalya @ Manya S/O Shripat Panchbudhe Vs the State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O. Lakadganj, Tahsil and Dist. Nagpur.