ORAL JUDGMENT :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. A.M. Joshi, learned A.P.P. waives service for Respondent-State. With consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The present petition is being filed praying to quash and set aside the order passed by District and Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Criminal Revision No.38/2022 dated 04/02/225 and the order passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sakoli, in Summary Criminal Complaint No.366/2020 dated 20/04/2022. The petitioner is further praying to discharge him from the offences punishable under Sections 427, 504, 506, 352 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

3. Brief facts of the case are that:

On 02/07/2020, Smt. Asha Kadam, Office Superintendent at Government Polytechnic College, Shendurwafa, District Sakoli, lodged an FIR alleging that on the same day at around 3 p.m., the petitioner, accompanied by one Madhuri Nagdeve, entered her office and inquired about the petitioner’s salary and General Provident Fund. After Madhuri left, the petitioner allegedly broke the office glass with a rod. The petitioner then went to the Principal’s office, damaged the CCTV equipment, abused the Principal, and threatened to release the General Provident Fund. The petitioner is also accused of causing a loss of Rs.1,00,000/- and issuing threats. Consequently, First Information Report was filed against the petitioner under Sections 427, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 3 of the Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. During the course of investigation, statements of 14 witnesses were recorded, who corroborated the complainant’s account, stating that the petitioner used abusive language and caused damage. Based on these statements, a charge sheet was filed, adding charges under Sections 294, 336, and 392 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was granted bail and filed an application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge, arguing that the charge-sheet lacked merit and failed to establish essential ingredients for the alleged offences. The Trial Court rejected this application, dropping Section 336 of Indian Penal Code finding insufficient material to proceed under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code, but allowed charges to be framed under Sections 294, 427, 504, 506 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The petitioner then filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court, Bhandara, arguing that none of the charges were sustainable. The Sessions Court dismissed the revision and upheld the Trial Court’s order. The petitioner has now filed the present petition, challenging both the Trial and Sessions Court orders and seeking discharge from the charges framed against him. On 20/04/2022, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sakoli, was pleased to pass the following order:

“ Charge be framed against accused for the sections 294, 427, 504, 506 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.”

Subsequently, on 04/02/2025, the Sessions Judge, Bhandara was pleased to pass the following order:-

“1. The Crim. Revision No.38/2022 stands dismissed.”

2. The Crim. Revision accordingly disposed of.”

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that insofar as Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is concerned, no offence is made out even if the allegations are taken as it is. There is no material in the charge-sheet in order to attract the ingredients of Section 294. He further submits that both the Courts below failed to consider the purport of Section 294 and committed a grave error in not discharging the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 294 of the IPC. In support of his contention, he has relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Om Prakash Ambadkar VS The St