The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court

seeking to quash the impugned FIR in Crime No.172 of

2019 registered by Afzalpur Police Station, now pending on

the file of learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Afzalpur,

for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 307, 109,

379 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short

‘the IPC’) and under Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals

Development and Regulation Act (for short ‘MMDR Act’).

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, the PSI of

Afzalpur Police Station lodged the first information against

accused Nos.1 and 2 alleging commission of offences

punishable under Sections 353, 307, 109, 379 read with

Section 34 of IPC and under Section 21(1) of MMDR Act.

It is alleged that on 23.10.2019, at 3.00 a.m. he noticed

3

the tipper lorry proceeding towards Desai kallor and he

waylaid the tipper and found that it was transporting sand.

Accused No.2 was the driver of the tipper and he was not

having any licence to transport the same. Therefore, the

tipper was seized in the presence of panchas. In the

meantime, accused No.2 informed that accused No.1 is the

owner of the lorry and he had instructed not to stop the

lorry and if any persons try to stop the lorry, to run the

lorry over them and by saying so, accused No.2 tried to

run over the tipper on the informant and his staff

members. Somehow, they escaped from the mishap.

Therefore, it is stated that accused No.1 being the owner

instigated accused No.2 to illegally transport the sand and

also tried to cause their death by running over the tipper

on the informant and his staff and thereby prevented them

from discharging their official duty. Accordingly, he

requested the police to register the case and to initiate

legal action. Accordingly, the police registered the case

and took up investigation. It is stated that the charge

sheet is not yet filed. The petitioner-accused No.1 is before

4

this Court seeking to quash the proceedings initiated

against him.

3.

Heard Sri Rajesh Doddamani, learned counsel

for the petitioner and Sri Shivakumar R. Tengli, learned

Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State.

Perused the materials on record.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner is not the owner of the tipper lorry in

question. Baseless allegations are made against him. He

never transported the sand illegally. Even though case was

registered on 23.10.2019, charge sheet is not yet filed,

even after lapse of more than three years. There is

absolutely no materials to connect the petitioner to the

offence in question. Initiation of criminal proceedings

against him is nothing but abuse of process of Court.

Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

5.

Per contra, learned Additional Government

Advocate opposing the petition submitted that serious

5

allegations are made against both the accused for having

committed the offences. Accused No.2 at the instance of

present petitioner tried to run over the tipper on the

informant and the Staff members who are all public

servants. Even though, the tipper-lorry in question is

standing in the name of the brother of the petitioner, it is

the petitioner who is managing the affairs of the lorry. The

petitioner is involved in one more case in Crime

No.63/2022 of Afzalpur police station for having committed

the offences under Sections 324, 353, 332, 392, 504, 506

read with section 34 of IPC. The petitioner obtained

anticipatory

bail

but

never

appeared

before

the

Investigating Officer. He is also not producing the lorry in

question for inspection. Under such circumstances, the

charge sheet could not be filed by the Investigating

Officer. Looking to the nature and seriousness of the

offences, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.

Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the petition.

6

6.

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would

arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the criminal case registered