6-REVN-151-2025 (CR).doc S.S.Kilaje IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 151 OF 2025 Murtuza Z Engineer ...Applicant/s VERSUS State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent/s _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Raj K. Awasthi a/w. Ms. Bushra Sayed and Mr. Yash Mishra i/b. Pragya Mishra, Advocate for Applicant. Ms. Ranjana D. Humane, APP for Respondent-State. Retired PI- Gadhve, J.J.Marg Police Station present. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. : 1. The challenge in this Revision Application is to the order passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, whereby charge has been framed against the applicant under Section 353 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”). 2. It is prosecution case that on 19.09.2019, when first informant and the officers of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (for short, “MHADA”) went to the shop of applicant and co-accused to vacate the shop in pursuance of a notice under Section 95[A] of the MHADA Act, the applicant and co-accused resisted the said action and used criminal force against the officers of MHADA. 3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that SONALI SATISH KILAJE Digitally signed by SONALI SATISH KILAJE Date: 2026.10.01 18:23:38 +0530 6-REVN-151-2025 (CR).doc S.S.Kilaje applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. From the statement of witnesses, it is not revealed that the applicant used criminal force or assaulted the first informant or officers of MHADA. Learned counsel further submitted that, as per the statement of witnesses, it is mentioned that applicant and co-accused engaged in a scuffle. However, it does not mean that the applicant used criminal force against the raiding party or the members of the MHADA team. Learned counsel further submitted that no notice under Section 95(A) of the MHADA Act was annexed with the chargesheet to establish that the officers were discharging official duty. However, these facts are not considered by the learned Judge and has framed the charge, which are erroneous and requested to allow the application. He relied on K. Dhananjay vs. Cabinet Secretary & Ors. [SLP (CRL) No. 5905 of 2022] and Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr. [(1979) 3 SCC 4]. 4. It is contention of learned APP that the applicant has not disputed the incident happened in his shop. The applicant is stating that a scuffle with the members of the MHADA party would not amount to criminal force or assault. However, the statement of the witnesses and FIR specifically state that the applicant and co-accused protested against the action of MHADA officers and their team and they used criminal force against the MHADA officers. Not-annexation of the notice under Section 6-REVN-151-2025 (CR).doc S.S.Kilaje 95(A) of MHADA Act cannot dilute the prosecution’s case. The same can be produced and proved in evidence. There is prima facie case against the applicant and requested to reject the application. 5. Heard rival submissions. Perused documents produced on record. The allegations against the applicants are that he and co-accused opposed the action of MHADA to vacate their shops and used criminal force against the MHADA officers. Section 353 of IPC reads as under: “353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.—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.” Admittedly, first informant, and MHADA officials and team workers were discharging their official duties at the time of incident. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that there was a scuffle between the applicant and MHADA officials and the same cannot be considered as criminal force. The criminal force is defined as under: “350. Criminal force.— Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person’s consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.” In the present case, from the statement of Chudaman Bagul, 6-REVN-151-2025 (CR).doc S.S.Kilaje first informant and an officer of MHADA, it appears that the applicant and co-accused resisted the eviction process and used criminal force against the officials of the MHADA and workers, when they had gone to the shop to vacate the same as per the notice under Section 95(A) of MHADA Act. The statement of witnesses Rajendra Jain, Hashmat Khan, Hafiz Khan, Qayyum Abdul Qadir Khan and Bhimrao Kale, support the statement of first informant. Thus, there is evidence on record showing the presence and participation of the applicant in the incident and his active resistance to the eviction process. The allegations that the applicant, along with the co- accused, pushed and resisted the MHADA officials and workers who had entered the shop while carrying out the eviction process, prima facie constitute the use of force without their consent and with the requisite intention or knowledge as contemplated under Section 350 of the IPC. The acts attributed to the applicant, therefore, prima facie amount to criminal force. The applicant is seeking quashing of framing of charge. It is settled law that where there is no material against an accused, he would be entitled to discharge and a charge cannot be framed against him. However, in the present case, there is sufficient evidence on record showing involvement and participation of the applicant in the alleged incident. 6. As regards the contention that notice under Section 95(A) of the MHADA has not been annexed to the chargesheet, the same cannot be 6-REVN-151-2025 (CR).doc S.S.Kilaje a ground to quash the charge at this stage. 7. I have gone through the case law cited by the learned counsel for the applicant, the facts of cited case and present case are different, hence not applicable and I pass following order. ORDER (i) The Revision Application is rejected. (ii) All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)