The court quashed FIR for IPC offences due to lack of evidence, emphasized police accountability, and allowed prosecution under the Motor Vehicles Act for continuing offences.

JUDGMENT :

URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

1. Admit

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

3. Present application preferred by the applicant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) vide Crime No.196/2023 dated 27.05.2023 registered with Parshioni, Nagpur (Gramin), District Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 332 , 353, 294, 504 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘ IPC ’) and under Sections 100 , 2, 177, 66(1), 192, 146 and 239 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V. Act’) and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing Sessions Case No.953/2025 pending before the District Judge – 18 and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur.

4. By this application, the applicant has prayed for quashing of the FIR as well as seeking directions to the non-applicant Nos.2, 4 and 5 to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- each for illegal detention and violation of fundamental rights of the applicant, in the interest of justice.

5. On 27.05.2023, the complainant Shailesh Manohar Madavi with the other police staff discharging his traffic duty, at that time, he stopped the vehicle of the applicant and made the challan process on the vehicle bearing No.MH-35-P-0657 as the vehicle of the applicant was having dark black film on the glass of his vehicle and also said vehicle was overloaded with the passengers. It was restrained by the complainant and other traffic police. It is alleged that the applicant abused the complainant during that process in a very filthy language, assaulted him on his person, obstructed him from discharging his public duty and fled away from the spot. Therefore, the police has chased and arrested him. On the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime against the present applicant.

6. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, who submitted that in fact, the alleged incident narrated by the complainant has not taken place. The applicant was proceeding in his vehicle. His vehicle was restrained by the police and he was detained by the police without any authority from 11.00 a.m. to 5.18 p.m.. Therefore, the applicant has made various complaints to the concerned superior officers of the non-applicant No.1 and specifically alleged against one Mr. Shivaji Vikram Munde, API, non-applicant No.2 Shailesh Manohar Madavi and Police Constable Kakade, who allegedly demanded illegal amount and after refusal by the applicant, the aforesaid three persons have assaulted the applicant and the applicant has been detained by the aforesaid three persons in their custody without any authority. The applicant by approaching to the superior officers specifically requested to make departmental inquiry and lodge the report against them. On the above said complaint dated 11.07.2023, the Secretary of the State of Maharashtra has informed to the Superintendent of Police, Nagpur for taking appropriate action on the complaint of the applicant. In view of the aforesaid communication by the Secretary of the State of Maharashtra, the Police Inspector, Police Station, Parshioni has called the applicant by issuing a summons for recording the statement on 27.07.2023. Accordingly, the applicant was present on 29.07.2023, however, his statement was not recorded on that day and his statement was recorded on 03.08.2023. As per the said statement, the non-applicant No.2 stopped the vehicle of the applicant and asked about the documents of vehicle. Despite the applicant has shown all the relevant documents of the vehicle to the non-applicant No.2, he asked for money and the applicant refused to fulfill the demand and warned him to