1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Criminal Application No. 2219 of 2008
Aniruddha s/o Ganesh Pathak,
aged about 36 years,
Occupation - Advocate,
R/o Jathar Peth, Akola .. APPLICANT
.. Versus ..
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Police Station Officer,
Police Station Civil Lines,
Akola.
2. State of Maharashtra,
through its Police Station Officer,
Police Station Ramdaspeth,
Akola.
3. Law Secretary,
Law & Judiciary Department,
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,,
Mumbai.
4. The Registrar General,
High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Bombay High Court, Mumbai. .. NON-APPLICANTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the applicant,
Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for the non-applicants 1 to 3,
None for non-applicant No.4
CORAM:- S. S. SHINDE, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 18-11-2009
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 21-11-2009
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:20:11 :::
2
JUDGMENT
1. This application is filed with prayer to quash the F.I.R.
dated 15-5-2008 lodged with non-applicant No.1 vide Crime
No.229/2008 for the offence punishable under Sections 353,
186, 294 and 506 along with Chapter Proceeding No.130/08
under Sections 107 and 116 (3) of Cr.P.C. and so also the
Chargesheet No. 280/2009 pending before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Akola arising out of Crime
No.229/2008.
2. Background facts of the case as disclosed in the
application are as under :-
The applicant is permanent resident of Akola(State of
Maharashtra). The applicant is a Bachelor of Technology
from Shivaji College, Akola. The applicant after completing
his graduation, has further taken his Law Degree and has
started practice at District Court, Akola in September, 2004
and since then is actively practicing before the District
Court, Akola and the High Court. The applicant has also
cleared the examination conducted by the M.P.S.C. for the
post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:20:11 :::
3
(First Class) in the year 2008. The applicant also appeared
for interview on 31st April, 2008 and has been selected for
the post of Civil Judge ( Junior Division) and Judicial
Magistrate (First Class) on 7th May, 2008.
3. The applicant’s father namely, Shri Ganesh Pathak
was a District Government Pleader in Akola for about ten
years. A report was lodged against him on 12th February,
2008, by one Ruby @ Urvashi Rajendra Thada, on the basis
of which offence under Sections 120(B), 376, 363, 365, 342,
307, 323, 506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was
registered against the father of the applicant. The father of
the applicant had, therefore, moved the Hon’ble High Court
for anticipatory bail, which was rejected and had further
moved the Hon’ble Apex Court for anticipatory bail. The
father of the applicant was pursuing all the remedies
available to him under the law.
4. It is the case of the applicant that while the process
was going on, the father of the applicant was pursuing his
remedies, the C.I.D. Officials were inquiring from the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:20:11 :::
4
applicant and his family members about whereabouts of
Ganesh Pathak though they did not have any knowledge.
The said C.I.D. Officials probably wanted to take Ganesh
Pathak in their custody and Ganesh Pathak at that point of
time was not protected by the orders of the Court. The said
C.I.D. Officials earlier to 3-5-2008 had visited and enquired
from the applicant and his family members which consists of
his sister and mother, however, since they did not have any
information, accordingly they had told the same to the
officials. In spite of this on 2nd May, 2008, the complainant in
the above crime namely, Sunita Meshram, A.P.I. visited the
house of the applicant at night time and enquired from the
sister of the applicant and was pressurizing the sister of the
applicant for about two hours. That on 3rd May, 2008 she
came again at 12-30 in the afternoon and enquired about
the mother of the applicant. She further told that she
wanted to investigate in respect of the offence under Section
376 of the Indian Penal Code registered against Ganesh
Pathak. The applicant and his sister namely, Vaidehi Sachin
Ahirrao informed the said Sunita Meshram that their mother
is not in the house and has gone to the temple. In spite of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:20:11 :::
5
telling so, she entered in the house and went up to the
kitchen and to the bedroom without there being any written
permission for doing so. The applicant had, therefore,
registered his mild protest against the same, to which she
reacted threatening the applicant to implicate him in a false
case. The applicant, therefore, had immediately reported
the matter to the Human Rights Commission by sending a
telegram on 3-5-2008. Perusal of the telegram would show
that the applicant has raised his apprehension before the
Human Rights Commission that he would be falsely
implicated in the offence since he objected to the arbitrary
behaviour of the said A.P.I. Sunita Meshram. To the utter
surprise and dismay of the applicant, the apprehension of
the applicant came true on 15-5-2008 i.e. subsequent to
twelve days after the incident F.I.R. came to be lodged.
5. It is the case of the applicant that his selection to Civil
Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate (First Class)
conveyed to the applicant on 7th May, 2008. According to
the applicant, the false report is lodged by the office with
vengeance against the applicant and same was registered as
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:20:11 :::
6
0/08. The said crime was subsequently transferred to Civil
Line Police Station, Akola and offence under Sections 353,
186, 294 and 506 along with Chapter Proceeding No.130/08
under Sections 107 and 116(3) of the Criminal Procedure
Code came to be registered against the applicant on
15-5-2008. The applicant did not even has knowledge of
these developments.
6.
The applicant was called to the Police Station on
15-5-2008 in the evening at 8.30 p.m. The applicant went to
the Police Station thinking that his police verification report
must have come from the M.P.S.C., and hence for inquiry, he
might have been called. However, to the utter surprise and
dismay of the applicant, the applicant was taken into
custody and subsequently released on bail on the next day.
Therefore, the applicant filed this application for quashing
the said F.I.R. on 19th June, 2008. Mean time the
chargesheet came to be filed, therefore, applicant amended
the application with leave of the Court and even prayed for
quashing the chargesheet No.280/2009.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:20:11 :::
7
7. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant
submitted that, though the alleged incident took place on 3rd
May, 2008, the F.I.R. came to be lodged on 15th May, 2008.
According to the learned Counsel, there is an inordinate
delay in filing the F.I.R. and on this ground alone the F.I.R.
and further proceedings based upon F.I.R. including
chargesheet is required to be quashed and set aside. The
learned Counsel further submitted that, since the applicant
protested against the complainant and told the complainant
that in case complainant visits again and again to the house
of the applicant without any written permission of the
superior, he will report this matter to the Human Rights
Commission and accordingly the applicant on 3rd May, 2008
itself sent telegram to the State Human Rights Commission.
Since complainant was annoyed as the applicant sent
telegram to the State Human Rights Commission with
vengeance registered the F.I.R. on 15-5-2008. According to
the leaned Counsel, if the alleged incident was taken place
on 3-5-2008, there was no reason for the complainant, who
is responsible Police Officer to file F.I.R. after twelve days i.e.
on 15-5-2008.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:20:11 :::
8
8. The learned Counsel further submitted that the
complainant, who is A.P.I. In the Police Force has visited the
house without holding any valid document to enter into the
house of the applicant and therefore, the applicant did ask
the complainant about written permission or search warrant
issued by the department or the superior officer for entering
in the house of the applicant and further search of the
house. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant
further submitted that the complainant when entered in the
house and went inside the kitchen and bedrooms in the
house and therefore, the applicant protested against
behaviour of the officer to enter in the house and make
search without holding any written permission to do so.
9. The learned Counsel invited my attention to the
reported judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of
State of Haryana and others .vs. Bhajan Lal reported
in AIR 1992 SC 604 and submitted that, where the
allegation made in the First Information Report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:20:11 :::
9
offence or make out a case against the accused, in that case
such F.I.R. needs to be quashed and any further proceedings
based upon such F.I.R. needs to be quashed. The learned
Counsel invited my attention to paragraph 108 of the
judgment cited Supra and submitted that in the instant case
even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence under Sections 294, 353 and
506 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the leaned Counsel
submits that no further investigation or proceedings can be
continued, on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by the complainant.
10. The learned Counsel invited my attention to the
contents of the F.I.R. and submitted that to attract provisions
of Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code, the necessary
ingredients are that if there is any obscene act in any public
place and if anybody sung, recited or uttered any obscene
song or word in or near any public place, then only the
provisions of Section 294 are attracted. According to the
learned Counsel, the applicant has not uttered any obscene
words or song. According to the learned Counsel, it is
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:20:11 :::
10
undisputed position that, the place of incident is house of
the applicant. Therefore, the learned Counsel submits that
to attract provisions of Section 294 if there is any obscene
act in any public place, then only the provisions of said
section are attracted.
11. The learned Counsel further submitted that so far
provisions of Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code is
concerned, to attract said section there should be assault or
criminal force to deter public servant from discharging
his/her duty. In the instant case on reading F.I.R. there is
nothing to indicate that there was assault or use of criminal
force by the applicant to deter the complainant from
discharging her duty.
12. The learned Counsel further submitted that to attract
the provisions of Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, there
should be criminal intimidation and on plain reading of the
complaint there is no such criminal intimidation. The
learned Counsel invited my attention to Section 503 to
explain “criminal intimidation”. The learned Counsel further
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:20:11 :::
11
submitted that the applicant has not threatened the
complainant with any injury to her person, reputation or
property. Therefore, the learned Counsel would submit that
provisions under Section 506 of the Indian Penal code are
not attracted in case of the applicant.
13. The learned Counsel further submitted that the
provisions of Section 186 cannot be invoked without
permission of the Magistrate and no further investigation can
be proceeded without permission. The learned Counsel
invited my attention to the provisions of Section 156 of
Cr.P.C. and contended that unless specific permission is
taken from the Magistrate to investigate alleged offence
under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code no further
investigation or proceeding can go on. The learned Counsel
invited my attention to Section 100 of Cr.P.C. and submitted
that if any officer wants to visit the house or to take search
of the house, the concerned officer has to come with
necessary warrant for search and in the instant case the
complainant admittedly did not carry any written permission
or search warrant of the house of the applicant. Therefore,
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:20:11 :::
12
the learned Counsel submits that any further investigation of
the crime alleged and further proceedings based upon the
said complaint filed by the complainant would be abuse of
process of law and abuse of process of Court and therefore,
this is a fit case in which this Court may exercise jurisdiction
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the F.I.R. and
proceedings based thereon.
14.
The learned APP invited my attention to the affidavit in
reply filed on behalf of the non-applicant. The learned APP
submitted that the chargesheet is already filed in the matter
and therefore, this Court may not entertain this application
under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The
learned APP further submitted that on plain reading of F.I.R.
the offence is made out under Sections 186, 294, 353 and
506 of the Indian Penal Code and rightly F.I.R. is lodged
against the applicant and after investigation chargesheet is
filed and therefore, this Court may not interfere at this stage.
The learned APP further submitted that though the alleged
incident took place on 3rd May, 2008 for filing the complaint,
necessary permission was sought by the Higher Officer and
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:20:11 :::
13
after receiving the permission which was granted on 8th May,
2008 the F.I.R. came to be lodged on 15th May, 2008.
Therefore, the leaned APP submits that there is no delay in
lodging the complaint. The learned APP invited my attention
to the statement of the sister of the applicant and submitted
that, the sister of the applicant has stated that incident in
question had taken place and the applicant herein had
exchanged words with the complainant and therefore, when
sister of the applicant admits about commission of alleged
offence, in that case the further proceedings based upon the
F.I.R. needs to be proceeded. Therefore, the learned APP
submits that this application may be rejected.
15. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
applicant at great length. I have also perused the contents
of the application, annexures thereto and reply filed on
behalf of the complainant.
16. This Court heard this application on 1st July, 2008 for
admission. While this Court granting Rule passed following
order-
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:20:11 :::
14
"I have perused the complaint. The
incident took place on 03-05-2008 and the
First Information Report came to be
registered on 15-05-2008 i.e. after delay of
12 days. After perusal of the complaint,
prima facie I am of the opinion that the
complaint does not make out any offence
under Sections 353, 294 and 506 of the
I.P.C. So far as offence under Section 186
is concerned, the same is non-cognizable
and bailable.
In that view of the matter, RULE
interim relief in terms of prayer clause
(ii).”
17. Today the matter is taken up for final hearing. At this
juncture, it would be relevant to refer to paragraph 108 in
case of State of Haryana and others .vs. Bhajan Lal
cited Supra.
Paragraph 108 of said judgment reads thus :-
“1. Where the allegations made in the
First Information Report or the complaint,
even if they are taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:20:11 :::
15
2. —————————————————
3. Where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint
and the evidence collected in support of
the same do not disclose the commission
of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do
not constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable offence,
no investigation is permitted by a police
officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code.
5. ————————————————–
6. ————————————————–
7. Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.”
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:20:11 :::
16
18. At this juncture, it would also be relevant to refer the
relevant portion of the F.I.R. from true translated copy placed
on record by the applicant, which reads that ;
“On the above mentioned subject I, the
applicant submit the report that underorders of the Special Inspector General of
Police, Amravati Region I having gone for
making investigation into Crime No.16/2009under Sections 376, 366, 307 of Indian
Penal Code read with sections 3,4,5,6 of theProhibition of Human Trafficking Act being
at Akola today at about 11.30 to 12.40hours in the morning under oral orders of
the Police Superintendent, National Police
Security Force, Camp, Akola I had gone formaking enquiry/ investigation with the
accused by name Advocate Ganesh Pathakfor making enquiry with the wife of
Advocate Ganesh Pathak by name Sou.
Suhasini Pathak to their house. Having
knocked the door of the house son of
Ganesh Pathak came out and said to me,
‘who are you ?’ Thereupon I told that I amA.P.I. Sunita Meshram and I have come from
C.I.D. Office. Even though I showed my
Identity Card to him, he said, ‘who are you
and why have you come here ?’ ‘Who is::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:20:11 :::
17your C.P., give me his number, I will talk to
him’ and shouting loudly like this he cameon my person and uttered a filthy language.
Thereupon I told him that I have come here
on Government duty and I have to make
some enquiries with your mother.
Thereupon he said that he was not going to
allow me to make enquiry with his mother.
You do whatever you have to do, tell yourC.P. and go immediately from here or I will
see you. At that time lady police constableAnita Buckle No.1767 was with me.
Thereafter Ms. Vaidehi Ahirrao came there.
She told Aniruddha not to create any
obstruction and allow to meet his mother,
even then he did not allow to meet Mrs.Pathak. Aniruddha Pathak threatened me
that he will see all of us. I shall make acomplaint against all of your officers with
the Human Rights Commission. I havinggone to the house of Pathak on my
Government duty, Aniruddha Pathak
created obstruction in my work and
misbehaved with me by giving filthyabuses.”
19. The first point which is required to be considered in the
present application is inordinate delay in filing the F.I.R. It is
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:20:11 :::
18
admitted position that the alleged incident took place on 3rd
May, 2008 at about 12.00 noon. It is also admitted position
that, on 3rd May, 2008 when the complainant entered in the
house of the applicant, she was not holding any written
permission or warrant for making entry in the house or for
further search of the house. The F.I.R. discloses that the
complainant went for making inquiry/investigation with the
accused by name Advocate Ganesh Pathak and his wife Sou.
Suhasini Pathak at their house on oral directions of superior
officer. Therefore, it follows from the contents of the F.I.R.
that the visit of the complainant on 3rd May, 2008 to the
house of the applicant for enquiry/ investigation or search,
as the case may be, was not with written permission from
the department or superior officers. Therefore, admittedly
the complainant was not holding with her either written
permission or warrant for search of the house of the
applicant and rightly applicant questioned the authority of
the complainant and permission to enter house and take
further search by the complainant.
20. On perusal of the reply filed by the non-applicant, it is
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:20:11 :::
19
stated in the said reply that “A.P.I. Sunita Meshram informed
by the application to the Superintendent of Police, State
C.I.D., Akola on 3rd May, 2008 about the incident. The
Superintendent of Police, State C.I.D., Akola has referred the
matter to the Superintendent of Police, Akola on 8th May,
2008 and thereafter Superintendent of Police, Akola given
letter to the Police Station, Ramdaspeth, Akola for registering
the offence against the applicant on 8th May, 2008.
Accordingly, F.I.R. was came to be registered against the
applicant on 15-5-2008.”
21. Mere reading of portion extracted here in above from
the affidavit in reply would clearly demonstrate that, the
complaint/F.I.R. which came to be filed by the complainant
was after thought. Though the alleged incident took place
on 3rd May, 2008, the F.I.R. is lodged after twelve days i.e. on
15-5-2008. It is not expected from the vigilant Police Officer
to make inordinate delay of lodging the F.I.R. The delay of
twelve days in filing F.I.R. speaks voluminous and strengthen
the contention of the applicant that, the alleged F.I.R. has
been lodged only with vengeance to counter the telegram
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:20:11 :::
20
dated 3rd May, 2008 sent by the applicant to State Human
Rights Commission. The applicant protested about the illegal
entry of the complainant in the house of the applicant and
further behaviour to visit kitchen and bedrooms. The
inordinate delay in filing F.I.R. can be one of the ground to
quash F.I.R. and further proceedings. In the instant case, it
cannot be forgotten that the complainant himself is Police
Officer and well aware about the provisions of law and more
particularly, Criminal Procedure Code and therefore, in the
instant case, it can be safely concluded that the delay of
twelve days in filing F.I.R. speaks voluminous and said F.I.R.
is lodged after thought since applicant protested against the
complainant by sending telegram to the State Human Rights
Commission on the date of incident i.e. on 3rd May, 2008
itself.
22. Though the learned APP has relied on the statement of
the sister of the applicant, said statement is to the extent
that the complainant came to the house of the applicant and
started enquiry and upon such enquiry/investigation, the
applicant exchanged words with the complainant and shown
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:20:11 :::
21
mild protest. That necessarily does not mean that the
applicant had used filthy language or any criminal force.
The sister of the applicant in her statement had stated that,
the applicant did not use any filthy or abusive language.
23. I find considerable substance in the contention of the
learned Counsel for the applicant that since the applicant
told the complainant that her entry in the house is without
any written permission and therefore, illegal would be
reported to the Human Rights Commission. The applicant
protested against the behaviour of the complainant and to
that effect immediately telegram was sent to the State
Human Rights Commission on 3rd May, 2008 itself. On plain
reading of the F.I.R. it appears that, the maximum harsh
language which is used by the applicant is that, the
applicant would write to the State Human Rights
Commission about the entry by the complainant in the house
without written permission or search warrant. Therefore, on
plaint reading of the F.I.R, it appears that no any offence is
attracted as alleged in the complaint.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:20:11 :::
22
24. The learned Counsel for the applicant is rights in
contending that the alleged incident took place in the house
of the applicant, which is not the public place and no
obscene language used by the applicant so as to attract the
provisions of Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code. On
careful and plain reading of the F.I.R., it clearly appears to
me that no any obscene act has been committed by the
applicant that too at public place. The incident in question
admittedly even as per the version in the complaint took
place in the house of the applicant. The complaint discloses
that, the applicant/accused has used obscene language,
however, there is no mention in the F.I.R. what words and
sentences are used by the applicant in obscene language.
The general statement is made in the F.I.R. that the obscene
language is used by the applicant. The complaint further
discloses that the applicant misbehaved with the
complainant by using filthy language. On careful perusal of
the contents of the complaint, does not disclose that, the
applicant has used any criminal force or assaulted the
complainant so as to attract provisions of Section 353 of the
Indian Penal Code. The provisions of Section 353 of the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:20:11 :::
23
Indian Penal Code contemplates that, ‘assault or criminal
force to deter public servant from discharging of his duty’.
The plain reading of the said section would show that,
‘whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being
a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public
servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from
discharging his duty as such public servant, or in
consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by
such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public
servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two years, or
with fine, or with both.
25. On careful reading of F.I.R., there is no any assault or
criminal force used by the applicant to complainant and the
applicant did not interfere in discharging the public duty by
the complainant. The entry of the complainant in the house
of the applicant was admittedly without any written
permission or warrant. Even accordingly to the complainant,
there was oral permission and there was no any written
permission or any warrant so as to visit the house of the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:20:11 :::
24
applicant. It has come on record that even on earlier
occasions the complainant visited the house of the applicant
for same purpose for which again complainant visited the
house of the applicant on 3rd May, 2008. The complainant
visited the house of the applicant even on 2nd May, 2008. If
there are repeated attempts by the complainant to enter in
the house of the applicant that too without any written
permission or warrant, and further entry in bedroom and
kitchen would certainly amounts interference in the personal
liberty of the person. Though the complainant is officer
appointed by the State Government, unless there is written
permission or warrant for search of the house, no casual
attempts can be made by the officers to enter in the house
of the common citizens, thereby disturbing the personal life
and liberty of the person. Therefore, the applicant was
absolutely justified in questioning the authority of the
complainant to enter in the house without any written
permission or warrant.
26. On plain reading of provisions of Section 506, said
provisions does contemplate criminal intimidation. However,
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:20:11 :::
25
on plain reading of the F.I.R. the provisions of said Section
506 are not attracted in the present case. There was no any
criminal intimidation by the applicant to the complainant.
27. So far provisions of Section 186 of the Indian Penal
Code are concerned, those can be invoked only with the
permission from the Magistrate, no police can take
cognizance of the said provisions and investigate on their
own. Admittedly
no permission has been taken for
investigation under said section by the Police Officer.
28. After careful reading of the affidavit in reply filed by
the complainant, it would show that the contents of the said
affidavit in reply are general in nature and do not answer the
averments in the application in detailed. No endeavour is
made in the affidavit in reply to show that the offences
alleged against the applicant are attracted on the strength of
contents of the complaint.
29. On careful reading of the F.I.R., I am of the considered
view that no offence is made out against the applicant. The
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:20:11 :::
26
F.I.R. is lodged after twelve days and the F.I.R. can be
quashed on this ground alone. By any stretch of
imagination, it is not expected from the vigilant Police
Officer, to file F.I.R. belatedly after twelve days from the date
of incident. On careful reading of affidavit in reply, there is
no explanation for filing the F.I.R. on 15th May, 2008 though
the alleged incident took place on 3rd May, 2008. The
explanation given in affidavit in reply is eye wash and said
explanation is given just to cover up the case. Even if the
explanation in the affidavit in reply for delayed F.I.R. is taken
into consideration, admittedly the Higher Officer had given
permission to lodge the F.I.R. on 8th May, 2009. There is no
any reason to file the F.I.R. on 15th May, 2009. Secondly, the
applicant is absolutely rights in contending that, just to take
vengeance for filing report against the complainant with
State Human Rights Commission for her behaviour, the said
false complaint is lodged against the applicant. Thirdly, the
allegations in the F.I.R. and other material, even if taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie make out any offence or make out a case against the
applicant. It would not be out of place to mention that, the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:20:11 :::
27
applicant has passed the M.P.S.C. Examination for the post of
Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate (First Class)
and he is selected for the same. There was nothing wrong
on the part of the complainant to protest against the said
Police Officer i.e. complainant, who entered in the house of
the applicant without any written permission or warrant for
recording the statement or search of the house and rightly
the applicant has protested against the complainant by filing
report to the State Human Rights Commission. The officers
though appointed by the State Government, have no rights
to enter anybody’s house unless they hold written
permission or warrant, as the case may be, as required
under law. After all entering into anybody’s house without
holding written permission or warrant, if any, would be
interfering in the privacy and liberty of the person.
In the instant case, already officer visited the house of
the applicant even on 2nd May, 2008. Therefore, repeatedly
visiting the house that too without any permission or
warrant amounts to interference in the privacy or liberty of
the person. Therefore, in natural course the applicant
reacted to the entry of the complainant without any written
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:20:11 :::
28
permission in the house of the applicant and protested
against the complainant and to that effect he also lodged
report with the Human Rights Commission on 3rd May, 2008
itself. On careful reading of the complaint, I do not find that
any offence is made out against the applicant.
30. While exercising powers under Article 226 and Section
482 of Cr.P.C. this Court is guided by the observations in para
108 of the reported judgment in case of State of Haryana
and others .vs. Bhajan Lal cited Supra. Therefore, for the
discussion herein above, any further investigation or
proceedings based upon the chargesheet filed by the
prosecution, would be abuse of process of Court. No
purpose would be served by continuing such proceedings
based upon the chargesheet filed by the State. Therefore,
the application succeeds and same is allowed in terms of
prayer clause (i).
In the result, F.I.R. dated 15-5-2008 lodged with non-
applicant No.1 vide Crime No.229/2008 for the offence
punishable under Sections 353, 186, 294 and 506 along with
Chapter Proceeding No.130/08 under Sections 107 and
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:20:11 :::
29
116(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, so also chargesheet
No.280/2009 is quashed and set aside.
The Rule is made absolute in above terms.
The application is allowed and disposed of.
Criminal miscellaneous applications, if any stand
disposed of in view of disposal of Criminal Application No.
2219/2008.
ig JUDGE
adgokar
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:20:11 :::
