Back
2021 Supreme(Bom) 704
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT GOA
T.V. Nalawade, Bharati H Dangre, JJ.
Judith Almeida - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Wri T Petition No. 12 of 2020
Decided On : 15-02-2021
Rohit Bras De Sa, Advocate, S. Shet, Advocate, Sagar Dhargalkar, Advocate
The court emphasized the importance of evaluating the material in the charge-sheet and the principles guiding the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in determining the quashment of an FIR.
Headnote:
ABUSE - Criminal Force on Public Servant - Sections 323, 353, 504, 506 (ii) read with Section 34 of IPC - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 323, 353, 504, 506 (ii) and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, highlighting the use of criminal force on a public servant and the common intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashment of the FIR filed against them, alleging that they were falsely implicated in retaliation to a complaint filed against the Secretary of Village Panchayat. The complainant, a public servant, alleged abuse and criminal force by the petitioners in an attempt to prevent him from discharging his duty.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charge-sheet disclosed prima facie commission of the offence, and the material supported the allegations of the complainant. The court held that the truth or genuineness of the allegations would be a matter of trial and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The issues involved the alleged abuse and criminal force on a public servant, the common intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty, and the petitioners' claim of false implication in retaliation to a complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles guiding the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, evaluating the material in the charge-sheet and determining that no case was made for quashing the FIR.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Bharati H. Dangre, J. - The two petitioners, who are arraigned as accused in FIR bearing no.101/2019 registered with Colva Police Station on 28.9.2019, invoking offences punishable under Sections 323, 353, 504, 506 (ii) read with Section 34 of IPC, seek the relief of quashment of the FIR. The petitioners claim that they are the social activists and the background to the FIR being lodged against them is to the effect that the petitioner no.2's brother, on 23.9.2019 had filed a complaint against Mr. Amol Tilve, Secretary of Village Panchayat, Colva, alleging several illegalities in his previous tenure as the Secretary of Colva Panchayat and that he was the person who was responsible for illegally granting NOC for the illegal constructions, reflecting that he was involved in land grabbing within the Panchayat of Colva.
2. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that by the said complaint filed by Mr. Amol Tilve, on 27.9.2019, he seek revenge by adding the petitioners as accused. The petitioners deny the happening of any such incident which form the basis of the complaint which resulted into registration of a FIR against the present petitioners.
3. Perused the complaint dated 27.9.2019 addressed by the complainant to the Colva Police Station, Salcete, Goa. The complainant came to be posted as the Village Panchayat Secretary of Colva and it is alleged by him that on 20.9.2019 when he was present in the office of the Block Development Officer to collect his Relieving Order, he crossed path with one Nevil Furtado, who threatened him and desisted him from accepting the Charge as Secretary of Village Panchayat of Colva. He was also threatened of being implicated in cases and being put behind the bar. The complaint stated that he kept mum and did not respond. Further incident narrated is of 26th September, when he was present along with his Advocates in consultation of High Court matter, he received repeated calls from the accused but he did not respond. That the complainant was also aware as to why the calls were made and he stated that it is on account of issuance of NOC to three movable carts, which were approved by the resolutions of the Panchayat but the accused persons were opposing the same.
4. The incident which culminated into a FIR is dated 27.9.2019 and as per the complainant at around 11.13 a.m., the petitioners came in the Office of the Panchayat and started abusing him in filthy language. It is alleged that he was restrained from leaving his cabin and was threatened that if the NOC is not withdrawn he will have to meet with dire consequences. It is also alleged that they defamed him by uttering that he had accepted money for the work done. The complainant attempted to explain the situation to them by stating that he is a Government servant but they prevented him from discharging his lawful duties. During the incident, it is alleged that on being repeatedly questioned about the grant of NOC he explained the position to the accused persons and when he tried to justify that he is not the sole authority on the issue and he cannot withdraw the NOC wild abuses were hurled at him and the petitioner no.2 is alleged to have pushed him. When they were asked to leave the Office of the Panchayat, they created a ruckus and since he was apprehensive that the accused no.1 being a female could falsely implicate him, he called the Police by seeking help on Police Helpline to avoid any untoward incident. The Police arrived at the spot at 11.33 a.m.
5. It is in the wake of these allegations offence came to be registered under Sections 323, 353, 504, 506 (ii) read with Section 34 of IPC against the present petitioners. The Investigating Machinery was set into motion and the Panchanama of the spot was drawn and the complainant was sent for medical examination which revealed that there were no external injuries. The necessary documents in support of the complaint being the Order of Transfer, his Joining Rep
