JUDGMENT :

ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing Chargesheet No. 2 of 2020 filed before J.M.F.C. Pathri, which upon committal is registered as Sessions Case No.248 of 2022 pending on the file of Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Parbhani. The aforesaid proceedings arise from Crime No.362 of 2020 registered with Pathri Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 353, 186, 201, 216, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act.

FACTS IN BRIEF :

3. The genesis of this crime was an altercation between the Applicant no.1 and Respondent no.2 over parking of a vehicle by the Applicant no.1 in front of the house of the Respondent no.2, which subsequently led to the Applicant no.1 abusing and threatening to cause death of Respondent No.2 followed by firing of revolver in air. The aforesaid incident occurred on 08.09.2020 at about 11.00 p.m. The Respondent no.2 lodged the First Information Report on 09.09.2020 at about 1.00 a.m., alleging that the Applicant no.1 had attempted to cause his death. The police officer on duty made an entry in the station diary and as per the instructions, the API attached to the concerned police station along with the police team, went to the place of the incident in search of the Applicant no.1. It is alleged that the Applicant no.2 did not allow to take search of the house and threatened by saying ^^njoktkyk gkr ykoyk rj ;kn jk[kk^^ (“beware if you touch the door”) and prevented the police team from taking search of the house and thus, obstructed them from discharging their lawful duties. The police took the Applicant no.2 in custody and on taking his personal search, a Khanjir was found on his person. It is further stated that one sword was also recovered from the car which was parked near the house of the Applicant no.2. It is further alleged that the Applicant nos.3, 4 and 6 assisted and aided the Applicant no.1 from fleeing away from the place of the incident by the car bearing registration No. MH-01-AX-4952; whereas, the Applicant no.5 is alleged to have removed the car bearing registration No.MH-21-C-2374 from the place of the incident and thus destroyed the evidence. On the basis of these allegations, the aforesaid crime came to be registered.

4. By order dated 1st October, 2021, this Court dismissed the application as against the Applicant No.1. The question for consideration is whether the allegations in the FIR disclose essential ingredients of the offences as alleged against the Applicant nos.2 to 6.

SUBMISSIONS:

5. Learned Counsel for the Applicant nos.2 to 6 submits that these Applicants are not involved in committing offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. Learned Counsel for the Applicants further submits that the police officer had no authority to enter the house of the Applicants without registering an offence. It is submitted that the house search was illegal and cannot be construed as discharge of lawful duty. The Applicant no.2 had only questioned the police officer the reason for entering his house in the middle of the night. He had not used any criminal force against the police and as such, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 353 of I.P.C. are not made out. He further submits that the other allegations against the Applicants are totally baseless and unfounded.

6. Per contra, learned APP and learned Counsel for the Respondent no.2 submit that Respondent no.2 had reported that Applicant no.1 had fired a gun shot. Pursuant to the said information, the police visited the place of the incident after making an entry in the station diary. It is submitted that the material on record prima facie reveals that the Applicant no.2 had obstructed the police personnel from entering the house and thereby, prevented them from discharging their lawful duties.

7. It is contend