Judgment 1 J-APL No.162.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 162 OF 2026 Shri. Dinkar Aasaram Thosare, Aged about 57 years, Occu. : Deputy Superintendent of Police, SDPO Office, Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur. …. APPLICANT // VERSUS // 1) Mrs. Venu Anil Maraskolhe, Aged about 57 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Plot No.5, Jugal Kishor Layout Near New Water Tank, Gopal Nagar, Nagpur. 2) State of Maharashtra, Police Station Officer, Ranapratap Nagar, Nagpur. …. N ON-APPLICANTS _____________________________________________________________ Mr. M. V. Acharya with Mr. M. S. Totre, Advocates for applicant. Mr. H. D. Futane, Additional Public Prosecutor for non- applicant No.2/State. _____________________________________________________________ CORAM : M.W. CHANDWANI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 06, 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Nobody appears on behalf of non-applicant No.1. Despite various opportunities being given to her, she did not file reply in the matter. 2026:BHC-NAG:13556 Judgment 2 J-APL No.162.2026.odt 3. The applicant seeks quashing and setting aside of the proceedings bearing Regular Criminal Case No.5087/2021, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.9, Nagpur as well as the order dated 19.10.2024, thereby issuing process for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) against the present applicant. 4. The applicant is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, working in the Police Department. At the relevant time, the applicant was posted as Senior Police Inspector, Police Station, Ranapratap Nagar, Nagpur. Non-applicant No.1/complainant filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”) bearing Cri.M.A. No.2291/2021, before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.9, Nagpur to issue directions to the Police Station Officer, Police Station, Ranapratap Nagar, Nagpur to register a crime against the applicant and other co-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 166, 201, 218, 220, 294, 307, 325, 330, 331, 363, 389, 451, 452 and 506 of the IPC. The said application came to be rejected vide order dated 22.12.2021. The learned Magistrate, while rejecting the application, treated the said application as a private complaint and proceeded in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. Judgment 3 J-APL No.162.2026.odt 5. The allegations in the said complaint against the present applicant and other co-accused are that Police Station Officer, Police Station, Selu i.e. accused No.1 had registered an offence under Section 7 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 initially against unknown persons after a gun was found near the field of the complainant. However, with the ill-intention of gaining money, accused No.1 tried to implicate the son of the complainant in the said crime. Thereafter, accused No.1 called the complainant and her son to the police station on various occasions and pressurized him for according a confession about the gun but the son of the complainant refused to give such statement. Thereafter, accused No.1 demanded Rs.1 Lakh for settlement. Under his pressure, the husband of the complainant had given Rs.15,000/- to him. For recovery of the remaining amount, accused No.1 started harassing the complainant and her family members. 6. It was also alleged in the said complaint that the applicant, along with other co-accused, entered the house of the complainant forcibly. They threatened, abused and assaulted her and her two daughters. When the complainant had been to the police station for registration of the FIR, the applicant did not accept her report. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the Judgment 4 J-APL No.162.2026.odt learned Magistrate. As per the direction of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur, an enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, in which he opined that no offence has been committed by the accused as alleged by the complainant. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant and the witnesses produced by her and thereafter, passed the impugned order dated 19.10.2024, thereby issuing process against the present applicant and other co-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 294 and 506 of the IPC, which is under challenge in the present application. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant vehemently submitted that there are no allegations against the present applicant of having visited the house of the complainant. Therefore, there is no question of the applicant assaulting, abusing and threatening the complainant and her family members. According to him, there is no material against the applicant before the learned Magistrate for the alleged offences. The learned Magistrate, without applying its mind and without scrutinizing the role of the present applicant has mechanically issued process against the applicant and other co-accused. Judgment 5 J-APL No.162.2026.odt 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) objected to the application on the ground that there is material against the applicant and other co-accused. The applicant should have approached the learned Sessions Judge first under revisional jurisdiction. On this ground, he sought rejection of the application. The learned APP fairly conceded that except the allegation that the applicant did not take the FIR of the complainant, there is no other allegation either in the statement of the complainant before the Police or before the learned Magistrate. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for non-applicant No.2/State. I have gone through the enquiry report, statements of the witnesses as well as statement of the complainant and her family members recorded by the Police as well as the learned Magistrate. 10. It has to be noted here that the complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant under various provisions of the IPC i.e. Sections 120-B, 166, 201, 218, 220, 294, 307, 325, 330, 331, 363, 389, 451, 452 and 506 of the IPC. It appears that after considering the enquiry report as well as the statements of the witnesses and statements of the complainant and her family members, the learned Magistrate was convinced that the alleged Judgment 6 J-APL No.162.2026.odt incident dated 09.06.2021 has happened in the house of the complainant and hence, he passed the impugned order. Relevant portion of the said impugned order is reproduced as under : “09. It is to be seen here that whether act of accused persons comes under act in discharge of his official duty. As per the report Under Section 202 Cr.P.C., accused persons had went to the house of Chintu Maraskolhe to arrest him for crime no.415/2020 registered in Selu Police Station. It is the contention of the complainant in her complaint as well as in the verification statements that accused have all entered in her house forcibly, they all threatened, beaten her by means of police stick due to which her finger was fractured, they also beat up to her daughters, accused voluntarily caused hurt, grievous hurt, abused to the complainant and her two daughters Pradnya and Anjali. No doubt that in view of report Exh.10 that accused nos.2 to 12 were gone on spot to arrest the Chintu Maraskolhe, however accused were not empowered to assault, abuse or intimidate to his family members. Hence, I am of the considerable view that the act of threatening, beating, causing grievous hurt to the complainant and her daughters does not comes under the preview of discharge of official duty contemplated under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, provisions Under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. would no be applicable.” 11. Thus, it appears that the learned Magistrate did not take cognizance of any other act alleged by the complainant and process came to be issued only because the alleged incident of assault occurred in the house of the complainant. Judgment 7 J-APL No.162.2026.odt 12. It is to be noted here that the learned Magistrate has specifically mentioned in the order about the Enquiry Report (Exh.10) and has then come to the conclusion that accused Nos.2 to 12 had gone to the spot to arrest the son of the complainant, where they assaulted, abused and threatened the complainant and her family members. The applicant is shown as accused No.12 in the said complaint. Perusal of the enquiry report (Exh.10) and even the statement of the complainant and her family members depicts that P.S.I. Nitin Nalawade, P.S.I. Sheetal Chamle and other police staff had been to the house of the complainant where they assaulted, abused and threatened the complainant and her family members. It appears that the name of the applicant is nowhere to be found in the statement the complainant or her family members or other witnesses, including the enquiry report (Exh.10). Nowhere has it been stated that the applicant had ever been to the house of the complainant where the alleged incident occurred. This aspect has not been considered by the learned trial Court. Without verifying the fact whether the applicant had been to the house of the complainant or not, process has been issued under Section 325, 294 and 506 of the IPC with regard to the alleged incident which happened according to the complainant on 09.06.2021 in her house. There is no material whatsoever to show that on 09.06.2021, when the said alleged Judgment 8 J-APL No.162.2026.odt incident had happened, the applicant was present in the house of the complainant. Therefore, no case is made out against the applicant for the alleged offence of grievous hurt by assaulting the complainant and her family members as well as of abusing and threatening them. The only allegation against the present applicant in the entire record appears to be that he did not register the offence. 13. Having found no material against the applicant, I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that the process issued by the learned Magistrate against the applicant does not stand. So far as the contention of the learned APP that the applicant should have first approached the Sessions Court in revision is concerned, since the applicant is seeking quashing of the entire proceedings by way of a specific prayer, the objection does not sustain. 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, qua the present applicant. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order : (i) The Criminal Application is allowed. Judgment 9 J-APL No.162.2026.odt (ii) The impugned order dated 19.10.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.9, Nagpur in Regular Criminal Case No.5087/2021, thereby issuing process for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is hereby quashed and set aside, qua the present applicant. (iii) Regular Criminal Case No.5087/2021 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.9, Nagpur stands quashed and set aside, qua the present applicant. 15. The criminal application stands disposed of. (M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) Kirtak Signed by: Mr. B.J. Kirtak Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 09/10/2026 18:39:35