JUDGMENT :

Sunil B. Shukre, J.

1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and learned APP for the respondent-State.

2. With the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondent-State, we have gone through the FIR and the other material available on record, which is forming part of the paper-book of this petition.

3. We are of the view that the allegations made in the FIR, when taken at their face-value, do not, in any manner, constitute the offence punishable under Section 186 of the IPC. These allegations, when accepted as they are, also do not indicate commission of any offence as is contemplated under Sections 43(f) and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

4. In order to constitute any offence punishable under Section 186 of the IPC, it is necessary that there must be a public servant who is voluntarily obstructed by another in discharge of his public functions and such obstruction must have direct connection with the discharge of public functions of such public servant. This offence would also indicate that it is for the public servant who has b