The main legal point established in the judgment is that the sufficiency of a complaint to establish prima facie evidence of alleged offences, as well as the cognizable or non-cognizable nature of the offences, are crucial factors in determining the validity of the registration of an FIR and the sustainability of a charge sheet.

JUDGMENT

M.S.JAWALKAR,J.

1. Heard Mr. S.S. Kantak, learned Senior Counsel appearing alongwith Mr. Ryan Menezes, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Devidas J. Pangam, learned Advocate General, who appears alongwith Mr. Pravin Faldessai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Ashwin D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 3.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. Mr. Faldessai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. A.D. Bhobe, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent no. 3.

4. By the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing FIR No. 18/2020 dtd. 5/2/2020, registered at Porvorim Police Station in respect of chargesheet no. 101/2020 and proceedings registered vide C.C. No. 455/S/2020/A before the Court of the learned JMFC, Mapusa.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2012, the petitioner was elected as a member of the Legislative Assembly of Goa from Porvorim constituency. In the year 2017, the petitioner again contested the General Elections to the Seventh Legislative Assembly and was declared elected to be a member of the Assembly by declaration dtd. 11/3/2017. On 3/2/2019, the budget session of the Assembly commenced in which the petitioner raised various issues regarding performance of the Government and highlighted lack of proper administration by the Government led by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which caused great discomfort to the Government. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 5/2/2019, respondent no. 3 being the spokesperson for BJP addressed a press conference at the party head office and apparently raised questions qua the properties and business of the petitioner and his family. According to the petitioner, on the same day, while the petitioner and the Hon'ble former Chief Minister were walking out of the assembly hall, respondent no. 3 came towards them, shook hands with them and exchanged pleasantries and then went his own way, however, Mr. Sadanand Tanawade, the President of BJP, Goa Unit, addressed a press conference and levelled false charges against the petitioner that petitioner had assaulted respondent no. 3 outside the assembly hall and demanded strict/immediate action against the petitioner when in fact no such incident had occurred.

6. On the same day, respondent no. 3 filed a complaint with the speaker of the assembly alleging that the petitioner in an angry and furious manner gripped the hand of the respondent no. 3 and asked him as to why he was concerned about petitioner's properties and that he will show him his father's and mother's property. Respondent no. 3 then called upon the speaker to immediately order police inquiry.

7. Said complaint was then forwarded to the Porvorim Police Station, which registered it as, First Information Report No. 18/2020 for the alleged offences punishable under Ss. 323 and 341 of IPC. Officials/personnel of the Goa Police, on 6/2/2020, arrested the petitioner, who was then released upon executing bail bond. The petitioner has denied all the allegations made in the complaint by the respondent no. 3. The petitioner thus seeks to quash and set aside the said FIR being registered mechanically without application of mind and abundantly an abuse of process neither maintainable in law nor sustainable on facts.

8. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Kantak submitted that subsequently, while filing the charge sheet, Sec. 506 of IPC was added. He further drew our attention to the complaint, which came to be filed on 5/2/2020 to the Speaker alleging incident of assault at 6 : 45 p.m., whereas the complaint was lodged at 9 : 58 p.m.

9. It is pointed out that a plain reading of the complaint/allegations therein, clearly show that none of the sine qua non ingredients of the offences defined in Ss. 319 and 339 of IPC punishable