1

936 cri. application 4302-19 .odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

936 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4302 OF 2019

SHIVAJI DNYANOBA NAKADE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

…

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. M. V. Salunke h/f Mr. N. B. Garje

AGP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. K. S. Patil

Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. S. V. Munde

….

CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND

SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.

DATED : 9th DECEMBER, 2021.

..

ORDER : (PER : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.)

1.

By consent of the parties, heard fnally at the stage of

admission.

2.

The applicant i.e. original accused, has fled this application

for quashing FIR bearing No. 356 of 2018, dated 10/10/2018,

registered with Police Station, Ashti, Tq. Ashti, District Beed for the

ofence punishable under Sections 353, 504 and 506 of IPC and

also for quashing subsequent proceeding arising out of it bearing

Sessions Case No. 286 of 2019 pending before the learned Principal

District and Sessions Judge, Beed.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no ingredients

of the aforesaid sections with which the applicant is charged with,

2

936 cri. application 4302-19 .odt

are established even if the aforesaid FIR is accepted as it is and in

its entirety. He submits that the informant i.e. respondent no.2 is

admittedly a public servant but at the time of incident he was not

at all discharging his duty as a public servant. At the time of

incident, respondent no.2/informant was merely taking tea in one

hotel at Doithan square. According to him, the applicant never used

any criminal force to deter respondent no.2/informant from

discharging his duty as a public servant. As such, no necessary

ingredients of Section 353 of IPC are attracted herein. He also

submits that respondent no.2/informant had in fact charge sheeted

for the ofence punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504 and 506 of

IPC in respect of the same incident on the basis of complaint lodged

by the present applicant. As such, the learned counsel for the

applicant submits that the possibility of making false allegations

against the applicant by respondent no.2/informant in the present

crime cannot be ruled out.

4.

Learned APP submits that the contents of the FIR defnitely

indicate the constitution of ofence under Sections 353, 504, 506 of

IPC. Moreover, there is triable case against the applicant, which

requires thorough trial.

5.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent no.2/informant drew our attention to the ofce order of

3

936 cri. application 4302-19 .odt

the respondent no.2/informant fled along with the FIR and

submitted that respondent no.2/informant was assigned with duty

of distribution of electricity bills and recovery thereof on the day of

incident and as it was the out door duty, it must be treated as duty

for whole day. Further, there are clear-cut allegations against the

applicant that he insulted and abused respondent no.2/ informant

and also uttered words that he would not allow respondent

no.2/informant to perform his duty in Doithan village, where the

incident allegedly took place. With this, learned counsel for

respondent no.2/informant prayed for dismissal of the application.

6.

We have gone through the FIR as well as contents of the

charge sheet, carefully. On bare perusal of the FIR in question, it

reveals that respondent no.2/informant on 10/10/2018 from 8.00

a.m. was distributing electric bills and also doing recovery thereof

till 12.00 noon. It is alleged in the FIR that at about 12.00 noon

when after distributing the electric bills in Doithan village,

respondent no.2/informant along with his assistant Vidyasagar Sunil

Pawar were having tea in one tea-stall at Doithan square, the

ap