The main legal point established in the judgment is that the allegations in an FIR, when taken at their face value, must prima facie constitute the necessary ingredients for an offence under the Penal Code in order to entertain an application to quash the FIR.

JUDGMENT

B.U. Debadwar, J. - By this application, the applicant prays to quash F.I.R. No.0033/2019, dated 31st January, 2019, registered against the applicant under sections 353, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (In short, "the I.P.C.) at Udgir City Police Station, Udgir, Dist.Latur.

2. Heard Mr.M.S. Deshmukh h/f Mr.U.L. Momale, the learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr.K.S. Patil, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent nos.1 and 2.

3. Facts giving rise to application, in nutshell, are as under.

a) Respondent No.2 is a government servant, holding the post of R.T.O. Inspector, Regional Transport Office, Latur. Whereas, the applicant is an Advocate by profession, practicing at Udgir and Latur. Respondent No.2 was a Head of Flying Squad, constituted for the purposes of detection of crimes under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (In short, "M.V. Act").

b) On 13.01.2019, at about 7 a.m., he, along with two other members of the Flying Squad, viz: Baliram Dnyanoba Shinde and Umesh Dashrath Durande, had left the office and started moving with office vehicle on Shirur Tajband to Udgir road, for detection of vehicles, being run on the road, in breach of the provisions of the M.V. Act. After detecting many cases, at about 9 p.m., they reached Umachauk, Udgir and noticed one trailer bearing MH-04 EL 4111 coming from Ahmedpur and proceeding towards Bidar and a huge ODC machine was loaded in the said trailer. Respondent no.2 and his associates called upon the trailer driver to show the R.T.O. papers, after stopping the trailer. Since, trailer driver did not show the R.T.O. papers, as directed to him, they diverted the trailer and took the trailer to Udgir Bus Depot, Udgir.

c) Soon after reaching the S.T. Bus Depot, the applicant rushed there, introduced himself as a practicing Advocate and called upon respondent no.2 to leave the trailer without taking any action or registering any crime under the provisions of M.V. Act. He stated the same in a threatening voice. When respondent no.2 refused to leave the trailer without registering case for breach of provisions of M.V. Act, the applicant became furious, called upon one Alim Shaikh, resident of Udgir. Alim Shaikh collected a mob. Upon collecting many pedestrians and persons from the said area, the applicant not only argued with respondent no.2, but also hurled abuses and facilitated the trailer driver to run away from the place i.e. S.T. Depot, Udgir where the trailer was detained. Upon which, the applicant left the spot and went away.

d) After some time, associates of respondent no.2 searched out and brought trailer driver Sayyed Akbar to S.T. Depot, Udgir. He refused to sign Challan no.637284 and take copy of the same. As such, the trailer was detained.

e) Since, the applicant had prevented and used criminal force to deter respondent no.2, a public servant, from discharging his duty, on 14.01.2019, respondent no.2 informed the same in writing to Regional Transport Officer, Latur and also to the Transport Commissioner, Mumbai and sought the sanction for lodging FIR against the applicant. Soon after receiving the sanction, respondent no.2 approached the Udgir City Police Station, Udgir and lodged the aforesaid FIR.

4. While taking us through the FIR, Mr.Mahesh Deshmukh, the learned Advocate for the applicant, vehemently argued that the averments/allegations made in the FIR are false, baseless and an after thought. They do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by the competent Police Officer. The applicant had not at all, either prevented or deterred respondent no.2 and his associates from discharging their lawful duty. The avertments/allegations in FIR are not at all sufficient to make out a case, either under section 353 or 504 and 506 of the IPC. There is no, prima facie, evidence for proceeding against the applicant. There is a delay of 17 days caused in lodging FIR. The averments made in the FIR, pertaining to sanction obtained