Judgment 1 J-APL No.753.2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 753 OF 2025 Ajit Upendra Pande, Aged 42 years, Occu. : Private, R/o. Kesari Nandan Nagar, Urja Nagar, Chandrapur, Dist. Chandrapur. …. APPLICANT // VERSUS // 1) State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station Ramnagar, Tah. & Distt. Chandrapur. 2) Anup Ashok Waghare, Aged 33 years, Occu.: Service, R/o Adarsha Nagar, Ranala, Kamptee, Tah. Kamptee, Dist. Nagpur. Presently at : c/o Prashant Kullarwar, Chota Bazar, Chandrapur. …. N ON-APPLICANTS _____________________________________________________________ Mr. A. A. Dhawas, Advocate for applicant. Mr. H. D. Futane, Additional Public Prosecutor for non- applicant No.1/State. Mrs. M. M. Ghatole, Advocate for non-applicant No.2. _____________________________________________________________ CORAM : M.W. CHANDWANI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 30, 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2026:BHC-NAG:13120-DB Judgment 2 J-APL No.753.2025.odt 2. The applicant seeks quashing of First Information Report (FIR) No.148/2025, dated 20.02.2025, registered with Police Station, Ramnagar, Chandrapur for the offences punishable under Sections 132 and 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNS”) and consequent chargesheet No.167/2025, dated 14.04.2025 registered as Summary Criminal Case No.1956/2025 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chandrapur. 3. The FIR indicates that non-applicant No.2/complainant is the Talathi of Durgapur and works at his office situated near Water- tank, Chandrapur. His job is to take action against illegal sand transporters on the orders of his superiors. On 19.02.2025 at about 10.00 am., as per the order of Tahsildar-Jitendra Gadewar, non- applicant No.2 had been at Urjanagar, where the driver of TATA ACE vehicle bearing No. MH 34 BZ 6792 was unloading sand. Therefore, non-applicant No.2 seized the said vehicle. The driver of the said vehicle stated the name of the owner of the said vehicle as Upendra Pande. Thereafter, on 20.02.2025, at about 01.00 pm., when non- applicant No.2 was in his office along with other staff members, the present applicant came there and questioned him about seizure of the vehicle of his father. He shouted, abused and threatened Judgment 3 J-APL No.753.2025.odt non-applicant No.2 and thereby, deterred him from performing his public duty. Therefore, non-applicant No.2 filed a complaint with Police Station, Ramnagar. On his complaint, the aforesaid offences came to be registered against the applicant. 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for non-applicant No.2. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the offence under Section 132 of the BNS has not been made out. According to him, for bringing the applicant within the ambit of Section 132, the prosecution has to show that the applicant used criminal force or assaulted the public servant and thereby, deterred him from performing his public duty. It is also contended that the other offence punishable under Section 352 of the BNS is non-cognizable in nature. Therefore, that offence cannot be proceeded with in absence of a cognizable offfence which has not been made out by the prosecution. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for non-applicant No.2 objected to the said application on the ground that the applicant went to the office of Judgment 4 J-APL No.753.2025.odt non-applicant No.2. He shouted at him, abused him as well as threatened him, thereby preventing non-applicant No.2 from performing his public duty. Hence, they sought rejection of the application. 7. Perusal of the chargesheet reveals that the vehicle of the father of the applicant was seized by non-applicant No.2 on the allegation of transporting illegal sand. It is alleged that the applicant had been to the office of non-applicant No.2 where he shouted, abused and threatened non-applicant No.2 due to seizure of the vehicle of his father. 8. It will be appropriate to reproduce Section 132 of the BNS for ready reference : “132. 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.” Judgment 5 J-APL No.753.2025.odt Thus, as per Section 132 of the BNS, whoever uses criminal force or assaults a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, so as to prevent such execution of duty will be punished. 9. Criminal force is defined under Section 129 and assault is defined under Section 130 of the BNS, which are reproduced as under:- “129. 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.” From the plain reading of Section 129 of the BNS, it is evident that criminal force requires intentional use of force against any person, without his consent, with the intention or knowledge that it is likely to cause injury, fear or annoyance. 130. Assault.—Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault. Explanation.—Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person uses may give to his gestures or preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures or preparations amount to an assault.” Judgment 6 J-APL No.753.2025.odt Section 130 of the BNS states that whoever by his gesture or preparation makes another person believe that he is about to use force against him, is said to commit assault. Mere words, without gestures or preparation do not constitute assault. 10. The FIR does not depict any use of criminal force or assault by the applicant against any public servant. Though, there is material which reveals that the applicant quarreled with non- applicant No.2 and spoke to him loudly, however, there are no allegations whatsoever that any criminal force was used or abuse or assault was directed by the applicant towards the public servant for deterring or preventing the public servant from the lawful discharge of his duty. 11. The chargesheet does not depict that any force was used or assault was made by the applicant against any public servant. Therefore, I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that for invoking Section 132 of the BNS, there must be an act of criminal force or assault on a public servant in execution of his official duty, with intent to deter such public servant from discharging his duty. Therefore, the applicant has not committed any offence under Section 132 of the BNS. Judgment 7 J-APL No.753.2025.odt 12. So far as Sections 352 of the BNS is concerned, it deals with intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace. The offence under Section 352 of the BNS is non-cognizable in nature, investigation of which requires specific permission from the competent Magistrate in accordance with Section 174 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It is a well settled principle of law that if a cognizable offence itself suffers from a legal infirmity and if against the alleged act of the applicant, no cognizable offence is made out, the entire investigation would be vitiated. Even if a non- cognizable offence has occurred, the Police cannot continue with the investigation without permission of the learned Magistrate. 13. A reference can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], wherein the principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIR were discussed and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the Judgment, it has been held as under : “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series Judgment 8 J-APL No.753.2025.odt of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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 F.I.R. do not disclose 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. Judgment 9 J-APL No.753.2025.odt (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.” 14. In view of the above, a case is made out for exercising the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the FIR and the consequent proceedings against the present applicant. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order : (i) The Criminal Application is allowed. (ii) FIR No.148/2025, dated 20.02.2025, registered with Police Station, Ramnagar, Chandrapur for the offences punishable under Sections 132 and 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and consequent chargesheet No.167/2025, dated 14.04.2025 registered as Summary Criminal Case No.1956/2025 pending before Judgment 10 J-APL No.753.2025.odt learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chandrapur, are hereby quashed and set aside. 15. The criminal application is disposed of. (M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) Kirtak Signed by: Mr. B.J. Kirtak Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 03/10/2026 16:16:53