1 31-J-APL-1505-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1505 OF 2023 APPLICANTS : 1. Gulab S/o Shrawan Sirsat, Aged about : 65 years, Occupation : Agriculturist, R/o Lohi, Tq. Darwah, Dist. Yavatmal. 2. Pankaj S/o Gulab Sirsat, Aged about 35 years, Occupation : Agriculturist, R/o Lohi, Tq. Darwah, Dist. Yavatmal. (All Above ON RA) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Darwah, Tq. Darwah, Dist. Yavatmal. 2. Vitthal S/o Sitaram Kumre, Aged about : 49 years, Occupation : Service, R/o Tahsil Office, Darwah, Tq. Darwah, Dist. Yavatmal. (All above ON RA) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri J. B. Kasat, Advocate for applicants. Ms. R. V. Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for Non-applicant No.1. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATED : 09/03/2026. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2026:BHC-NAG:4079-DB 2 31-J-APL-1505-2023.doc 2. The present application is preferred by the applicants for quashing of FIR in connection with Crime No.711/2023 registered under Sections 353, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. A crime is registered on the basis of report lodged by Vitthal Sitaram Komre i.e. non-applicant No.2 on an allegation that he is serving as a Tahsildar at Darwha. Some land from the Gat No.11 bearing Plot No.74 was allotted to Parmeshwar Govindrao Pund. Accordingly, he has deposited the amount as per the Government Rules towards the allotment of the said land. However, the applicants have encroached upon the said land by constructing a building on the said land. Therefore, Parmeshwar Govindrao Pund has filed an application for possession of the said premises. Therefore, the applicants along with other officials namely; Sarpanch of village Darwha and Circle Officer visited the said place. At that place, the applicants have raised a quarrel, manhandled them, abused them as well as came on his person to assault him. On the basis of said report, police have registered a crime that the present applicants have intervened when they were discharging public duty. On the basis of same, crime was registered against the present applicants. 3 31-J-APL-1505-2023.doc 4. During investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded relevant statements of the witnesses. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 23/11/2023 itself. The charges were also framed on 15/01/2026. 5. Heard learned counsel for the applicants who submitted that from the recitals of the FIR, no prima facie offence is made out against the present applicants. He is not aware as to the filing of the charge sheet before the Trial Court. He submitted that even accepting the allegations as it is, no offence is made out against the present applicants. In view of that, application deserves to be allowed. 6. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said contention and submitted that despite filing of the charge sheet on 23/11/2023 itself, the applicants have not challenged the charge sheet. Therefore, the application is not maintainable. She further submitted that despite the charges are framed on 15/01/2026, no steps are taken to challenge the charge sheet. Therefore, this fact itself is sufficient to show that the applicants were having knowledge of filing of the charge sheet as they have already attended the proceedings before the Trial Court. In view of that, application deserves to be rejected. 4 31-J-APL-1505-2023.doc 7. On hearing both the sides and on perusal of the entire investigation papers, it reveals that charge sheet is already filed on 23/11/2023. This application is pending before this Court since 09/10/2023. By order dated 07/11/2023, notices were issued. It is further apparent from the statement of the learned APP which is an admitted position that on 15/01/2026, the charges were framed against the present applicants. Despite the charges were framed and they are having knowledge about the filing of the charge sheet, no steps are taken to amend the application to challenge the charge sheet. 8. Coming to the merits of the case as far as the allegations against the present applicants are concerned which are specific allegations that the present applicants have not only intervened and restrained the informant who was discharging the public duty, but also manhandled them. Thus, the present applicants have used criminal force to deter the public servant from discharging his duty and thereby committed an offence under Section 353 of IPC. Section 353 of IPC deals with the aspect of assault or criminal force to deter the public servant from discharging the official duty which reads as under :- “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 5 31-J-APL-1505-2023.doc 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.” 9. The recitals of the FIR specifically show that when the non-applicant No.2 who is serving as a Tahsildar along with other public servants had been to the place of the encroachment which was allegedly committed by the present applicants. At the relevant time, the applicants not only deterred the public servant from discharging of his public duty, but manhandled them and abused them in filthy language which is sufficient to show that they have used criminal force on the non-applicant No.2. The statements of various witnesses also substantiate the said contentions including the statement of Anil Chandu Bawne, Vijay Madhukar Meshram. Thus, at this stage, prima face case is made out against the present applicants. 10. By applying the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Apex in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, which are reproduced as under : “(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. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose 6 31-J-APL-1505-2023.doc a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR 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 FIR 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) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (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.” 11. The prima face case is made out against the present applicants. In view of that, application deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order :- ORDER The application is rejected. [JUDGE] Choulwar