U/S.482 CrPC Court is required to examine whether the averments in the complaint constitute the ingredients necessary for an offense alleged: Bombay High Court
The Court, under section 482 of Cr Pc, would investigate whether the allegations in the case include the requisite elements of a crime. If the face value of the allegations doesn’t amount to the charge, the charges can be overturned. This auspicious judgment was passed by The High Court of Bombay in the case of Amol S/o Marotirao Talwadkar vs The State of Maharashtra &amp; Ors [Criminal Application No. 569 of 2019] by Honourable Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge &amp; Justice B.U. Debadwar. The facts of the case Respondent along with two other members of flying squad noticed one trailer proceeding towards Bidar, trailer driver was asked to show R.T.O. papers, which they didn’t showed and diverted the trailer toward bus stop and applicant arrived there, called upon the respondent to leave the trailer without taking any action or registering any crime under the provisions of M.V. Act. Since the applicant had prevented and used criminal force to deter the respondent. They were charged with section 353 or 504 and 506 of the IPC. The learned counsel for the applicant, vehemently argued that the allegations made in the FIR are false, baseless and an afterthought, they do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by the competent Police Officer. The applicant had not at all, either prevented or deterred the respondent and his associates from discharging their lawful duty. The allegations in FIR are not at all sufficient to make out a case, either under section 353 or 504 and 506 of the IPC. Therefore, it would not be proper and legal to drag the applicant to face the prosecution, he furthered added. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that in the relevant period, the respondent, along with his staff, was discharging his lawful duty. The averments made in the FIR are clear, cogent and sufficient to make out a prima facie case under section 353 of the IPC. The court relied on the apex court in the case of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy and anr Vs. Sudha Seetharam and anr, “it was held that The High Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is required to examine whether the averments in the complaint constitute the ingredients necessary for an offence alleged under the Penal Code. If the averments taken on their face do not constitute the ingredients necessary for the offence, the criminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 482. A criminal proceeding can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose the commission of an offence under the Penal Code”
 on 09 04 2021 on 11 04 569.19APPLN.odt1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 569 OF 2019 Amol S o Marotirao TalwadkarAge : 35 years Occ : Advocate R o Kranti Nagar Banshelki Road Udgir Tq. Udgir Dist. Latur. ..APPLICANT VERSUS 1.The State of MaharashtraThrough the Investigating Officer In Crime No.0033 2019 registered with Udgir City Police Station Tq. Udgir Dist. Latur. 2.Raju S o Murlidhar NagreAge : 31 years Occ : Service R o Regional Transport Office Latur Dist. Latur. ..RESPONDENTS...Mr.M.S. Deshmukh h f Mr.U.L. Momale Advocate forthe applicant. Mr.K.S. Patil APP for respondent nos.1 and 2. … CORAM : RAVINDRA V.GHUGE AND B.U.DEBADWAR JJ. RESERVED ON : 01st April 2021 PRONOUNCED ON : 09th April 2021JUDGMENTat Udgir City Police Station Udgir Dist.Latur. 2.Heard Mr.M.S. Deshmukh h f Mr.U.L.Momale the learned Advocate for theapplicant and Mr.K.S. Patil the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor for respondentnos.1 and 2. 3.Facts giving rise to application innutshell are as under. a)Respondent No.2 is a governmentservant holding the post of R.T.O.Inspector Regional Transport Office Latur.Whereas the applicant is an Advocate byprofession practicing at Udgir and Latur.Respondent No.2 was a Head of Flying Squad constituted for the purposes of detection ofcrimes under the provisions of the MotorVehicles Act 198816 SCC 739} the Hon’ble Apex Courtwhile discussing the scope and ambit ofsection 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure held as under : “9. Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure saves theinherent power of the High Court tomake orders necessary to secure theends of justice. In Indian OilCorpn. v. NEPCLtd a two Judge Bench of this Court reviewedthe precedents on the exercise ofjurisdiction under Section 482 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure 1973and formulated guiding principlesin the following terms :12. A complaint can bequashed where the allegationsmade in the complaint even ifthey are taken at their facevalue and accepted in theirentirety do not prima facieconstitute any offence or makeout the case alleged againstthe accused. For this purpose the complaint has to beexamined as a whole butwithout examining the merits ofthe allegations. Neither adetailed inquiry nor ameticulous analysis of thematerial nor an assessment ofthe reliability or genuinenessof the allegations in thecomplaint is warranted while on 09 04 2021 on 11 04 569.19APPLN.odt13examining prayer for quashingof a complaint.A complaint may alsobe quashed where it is a clearabuse of the process of thecourt as when the criminalproceeding is found to havebeen initiated with mala fides malice for wreaking vengeanceor to cause harm or where theallegations are absurd andinherently improbable.The power to quashshall not however be used tostifle or scuttle a legitimateprosecution. The power shouldbe used sparingly and withabundant caution relied upon bythe learned Advocate for the applicant. Thefacts of the case in hand are some whatdifferent. In Kundan’s case the FIR came tobe quashed mainly for non compliance ofsection 186 of the IPC. Therefore the ratiolaid down in Kundan’s casewill notcome to the rescue of applicant for claimingquashing of FIR. 17.After examining the FIR in itsentirety we are satisfied that the avermentsmade therein constitute ingredients necessaryfor offence under sections 353 and 506 of theIPC. For the reasons discussed hereinabove the FIR cannot be quashed. With this wedismiss the application and vacate theinterim relief dated 01 03 2019.(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE J.)18.After pronouncement of the judgment Mr.M.S. Deshmukh the learned counsel for theapplicant prayed for continuation of interimrelief dated 01 03 2019 for four weeks. 19.Considering the reasons assigned forrefusing to quash the FIR in the judgment on 09 04 2021 on 11 04 569.19APPLN.odt17prayer for continuation of interim reliefdated 01 03 2019 is rejected.(B.U.DEBADWAR J.) SGA 