1

Cr.APL No.315.21 J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.315 OF 2021

1. Sandeep Badriprasad Agrawal,

Aged about 44 years,

R/o. Smruti Agrasen Road,

Dharampeth, Nagpur.

2. Mohan Govind Kothekar,

Aged about 59 years,

R/o. Plot No.32,

Vijay Nagar, Near IT Park,

Pratap Nagar, Nagpur.

….APPLICANTS

// VERSUS //

State of Maharashtra, through

P. S.O., Sitabuldi Police Station,

Nagpur.

…. NON-APPLICANT

Ms. Radhika D. Raskar, Advocate for the applicants.

Shri S. P. Deshpande, A.P.P. for the non-applicant/State.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CORAM : Z. A. HAQ AND

AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATE : 23.02.2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER: AMIT B. BORKAR, J.]

1.

Heard.

2.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3.

By this application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the applicants are challenging registration of

the First Information Report No.307/2020 registered with the non-

2

Cr.APL No.315.21 J

applicant-Police Station dated 12.07.2020 for the offences

punishable under Sections 187, 188, 269, 270 of the Indian Penal

Code and Sections 135 read with Sections 37(1), 37(3) of the

Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

4.

The First Information Report came to be registered

against the applicants with the accusations that the applicants

violated the order dated 30.06.2020 and 06.07.2020 issued in

exercise of power conferred by sub Section (1) and sub Section (3)

of Section 37 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and has carried

out protest, therefore offences under Sections 187, 188, 269, 270 of

the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 read with Sections 37(1)

and 37(3) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 are registered

against the applicants.

5.

We have carefully considered the allegations in the First

Information Report. The essential ingredients of Section 188 of the

Indian Penal Code is that the disobedience caused by a person

causes obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully

employed. From the allegations in the First Information Report,

there is no allegations that the applicants knowingly caused any

act which would cause obstruction, annoyance or injury to any

person lawfully employed.

3

Cr.APL No.315.21 J

6.

In so far as Sections 269 and 270 of Indian Penal Code

is concerned, the said Section reads as under :-

“269. Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease

dangerous to life.—Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any

act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be,

likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life,

shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a

term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with

both.

270. Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease

dangerous to life.—Whoever malignantly does any act which is,

and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to

spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be

punished with imprisonment of either description for a term

which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

7.

To attract ingredients of Sections 269 and 270, it is

necessary that the person to commit any act which he knows is

likely to spread infection of any decease dangerous to lives. There

is no allegation against the applicants that the act of negligence

committed by the applicants was likely to spread infection of any

disease dangerous to life or the applicants have done any act which

was likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life. In

absence of such allegations in the First Information Report,

ingredients of offences alleged against the applicants are not

fulfilled.

4

Cr.APL No.315.21 J

8.

On overall consideration of the allegations in the First

Information Report, we are satisfied that the allegations even if

accepted as correct, same does not fulfill the of