922 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.902 OF 2024 SUDHAKAR S/O SHANKARRAO PISE VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. POLICE STATION OFFICE CHANDUR BAZAR DIST AMRAVATI AND ANOTHER ______________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Mr. B. Chandwadkar, Advocate for the applicant/s Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for the non-applicant/respondent/State ------------------------------- CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 09 th APRIL, 2025 1. Heard. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing and setting aside the charge-sheet No.59 of 2024 dated 23.05.2024, arising out of the First Information Report (FIR) No.201 of 2024 dated 24.03.2024, registered with Police Station Chandur Bazar, Dist. Amravati, for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 294 and 506 of the IPC. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on the date of the incident i.e. on 23.03.2024 when the complainant was alone in her house in absence of her son and husband, the applicant, who is the neighbour of the complainant, trespassed into the house of the complainant and abused her. When she tried to go out of the house, the applicant nd.thawre 2025:BHC-NAG:3848-DB 922 2 prevented her from doing so. He further threatened to kill her. Accordingly, a report was lodged by her on 24.03.2024. Thereupon, the investigation was made and the charge-sheet in question came to be filed. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complaint is frivolous, as there is enmity between the husband of the complainant and the present applicant. He further points out that a dispute between the applicant and husband of the non-applicant No.2 has been going on since long, as the husband of the complainant claims that the applicant has encroached over the land of the complainant to the extent of six inches. He therefore, submits that for wreaking vengeance, the present report came to be lodged by the complainant. 6. He further argues that even if the allegations made in the FIR are taken on its face value, no offence constitutes as alleged under Sections 452 and 294 of the IPC. 7. He then, submits that the applicant happens to be a Monk and he is a peace loving person and therefore, there is no possibility of commission of any such act by the applicant. He therefore, submits that the complaint is frivolous one. nd.thawre 922 3 8. He further submits that the incident was taken place in the morning at 9.00 a.m. and not a single independent witness is there to support the case of the prosecution as regards the alleged incidence. He therefore, submits that this is a fit case for quashing the charge-sheet. 9. On the other hand, the learned APP opposed the application and submits that the allegations made in the FIR constitute the offences under Sections 452 and 294 and 506 of the IPC. 10. He further points out that a statement of Sau. Rekha Ambadas Ingale, happens to be an aunt of the applicant, who resides on the first floor of the house of the complainant. He points out that the said statement supports the case of the prosecution and as there is prima facie sufficient material available on record, to show the complicity of the applicant in the alleged offence, he prays for rejection of the present application. 11. In view of the rival submissions made by the parties, we have perused the charge-sheet. Since it is the case of the applicant that even if the allegations made in the report are taken on its face value, the offence under Sections 452 and 294 of the IPC, do not attract, it would be beneficial to refer to the allegation in the report. The relevant part of the report is thus, reproduced herein under, in vernacular, nd.thawre 922 4 which reads thus: ^^fn- 23-03-2024 jksth ldkGh 09-00 ok- p njE;ku eh ?kjh ,dVhp gksrh ek>k eqyxk ‘kkGsr xsyk gksrk vkf.k irh RkGosyyk nqdkukr xsys gksrs- RksOgk 09-30 ok- njE;ku lq/kkdj fils gk vukf/kd`rius ek>s ?kjkr vkyk o Eg.kkyk dh] rqEgh dkWyuhrY;kauh feGqu ek>sfo:) iksLVsyk fjiksVZ dk fnyk- vls Eg.kqu lq/kkdj fils gk rq>s ek;ph Qksd.kh ektyh dk; v’kh v’yhy Hkk”ksr f’kohxkG d: ykxyk eh ?kjkckgsj ;s.;kP;k iz;Ru dsyk rj rq vkrk ckgsj d’kh tkrs vls Eg.kwu eyk ftokus ekj.;kph /kedh fnyh- eh vksjMyh vlrk yxsp ek>h vkR;k js[kk baxGs g;k o:u [kkyh vkY;kus yxsp R;kauk ikgqu rks iGqu xsyk-** 12. At this stage, it is also beneficial to refer to the Sections 452 and 294 of the IPC, which read thus: “452. House-trespass alter preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting and person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 294. Obscene acts and songs Whoever, to the annoyance of others- (a) does any obscene act in any public place, or (b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both. ” 13. In light of the language of both the above referred sections, if we look into the allegations made in the FIR, it is evident that as far as section 452 is concerned, there is allegation in the report that the applicant committed nd.thawre 922 5 trespass for putting the applicant in fear of hurt and she was wrongly restrained from coming out of the house. Thus, we are of the opinion that section 452 of the IPC prima facie attracts in the present case. 14. Furthermore, the words used, while abusing the complainant, show the same were obscene. Thus, even if the allegations are taken on its face value, we are of the opinion that it prima facie constitutes the offence as alleged. 15. As far as the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the Monk and therefore, he cannot commit such offence, we do not want to make any comment upon the same, considering the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC. 16. As far as the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no independent witness in the present case. We reject such submission in view of the statement of Sau. Rekha Ambadas Ingale, which is prima facie sufficient to say that the alleged incident had taken place. Hence, it cannot be said that the complaint is frivolous one. 17. Having held so, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, cited by the learned counsel for the nd.thawre 922 6 applicant, in the case of Naresh Aneja Vs. State of U.P.1 is of no help to the applicant in the present matter. Accordingly, the application is rejected. (PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) 1 (2025) 2 SCC 604 nd.thawre