High Court

Legal Reasoning

cran1896.21-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1896 OF 20211.Abdul Majeed Abdul Rahim,Age 66 years,Occ. Pensioner andSecretary of Indira Education SocietyParbhani, R/o. Meraj Nagar, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani 2.Mohammad SaidAge 33 years, Occ. ServiceR/o. Meraj Nagar, ParbhaniTq. & Dist. Parbhani 3.Shaikh Mudssir Abdul Aziz,Age 40 years, Occ. Asst. Teacher,R/o. Meraj Nagar, ParbhaniTq. & Dist. Parbhani ...Applicants Versus 1.The State of MaharashtraThrough the Investigating OfficerPolice Station Nanalpeth,District Parbhani2.Najmunnisa Begum d/o Abdul SattarAge 54 years, Occ. Service as Headmistress, R/o. Iqbal NagarParbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani ...Respondents …..Mr. A.M. Inamdar h/f Ms. Fatema S. Kazi, Advocate for applicantsMr. G.A. Kulkarni, A.P.P. for the respondent No.1 ….. CORAM:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATED:21st JULY, 2025 cran1896.21-2- O R D E R (PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) :- 1.Heard learned advocate for the applicants and learnedA.P.P. for respondent No.1-State. 2.This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) for quashing theF.I.R. No. 374 of 2021, dated 22.07.2021 registered with Nanalpethpolice station, Parbhani, District Parbhani, for the offencespunishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C.and the consequential criminal proceeding bearing R.C.C. No. 502 of2021 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani,District Parbhani.3.The informant averred in the report that she is HeadMistress of Alphala school, Parbhani. The applicant No.1 is theSecretary of the said school. On 22.07.2021 at about 01.00 p.m. herson Mohmmad Shoyab was dropping her at school on a motor cycle.At that time, all the applicants stopped their motor cycle and hurledabuses at her on account of earlier dispute and manhandled her.The applicants also beat her son. The informant further averred thatapplicant No.1, being Secretary of the school, frequently used toharass and abuse her. The applicants beat her son with fist and kickblows on his chest and back etc. At that time, they also threatened cran1896.21-3- her that they will eliminate her. Therefore, the informant lodged thereport on 22.07.2021 against the applicants.4.Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that on thesaid date and time, the son of the informant had threatened applicantNo.1 and therefore, applicant No.1 had also went to police station forlodging the report but the police did not accept the said report, andlater on the said report has been registered as N.C.R. No. 326 of2021. The present complaint has been filed only to harass theapplicants, as the averments made in the complaint do not constitutea cognizable offence. By filing the report, the informant is trying topressurize applicant No.1, who is Secretary of the school, so as todisable him for not taking action against the informant in pursuance tothe enquiry report submitted by the Education department. He lastlyprayed to quash and set aside the report.5.Learned A.P.P. for respondent No.1 State submitted thatSection 341 of the I.P.C. is a cognizable offence and a full-fledgedtrial of the said offence is necessary. The offences committed by theapplicants are serious in nature as they tried to kill the son of theinformant. Therefore, the applicants cannot be exonerated from thecriminal liability under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 r.w. 34 ofI.P.C.. It is lastly prayed to reject the application. cran1896.21-4- 6.Here, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment ofHon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.S. Madhanagopal andothers vs. K. Lalitha, (2022) 17 SCC 818, in which in paras 10 and11, it is observed as under:-“10.Section 341 of the IPC talks about punishmentfor wrongful restraint. Section 341 reads thus: "341. Punishment for wrongful restraint - Whoeverwrongfully restrains any person shall be punishedwith simple imprisonment for a term which mayextend to one month, or with fine which may extendto five hundred rupees or with both." 11.The complaint also fails to disclose the necessaryingredients to constitute the offence of wrongful restraint. Inorder to attract application of Section 341 which providesfor punishment for wrongful restraint, it has to be provedthat there was obstruction by the accused; (ii) suchobstruction prevented a person from proceeding in adirection to which he had a right to proceed; and (iii) theaccused caused such obstruction voluntarily. Theobstructor must intend or know or would have reason tobelieve that the means adopted would cause obstruction tothe complainant.” 7.We have perused the charge sheet particularly the reportand the statements of witnesses. The witnesses have stated in theirstatements that they saw the incident as stated by the informant. cran1896.21-5- However, nature of that road, its size i.e. width and length is notstated by the witnesses in their statements. Further, the twowitnesses viz. Abdul Jalil and Mohd. Javed have stated similar factsas in the F.I.R. But both statements cannot be relied upon as theinformant has not stated about their presence at the spot of incident,at the relevant time. Thus, vague story of alleged incident is statedby the informant and witnesses.8.As far as the allegations of wrongful restraint of theinformant and her son is concerned, the report is too vague anddoubtful as to stopping of motor cycle on a public road while she wasproceeding with her son, as it is not clarified whether the informantwas totally restrained at the open public road at that time. Thereport or statement of witnesses does not disclose mens-rea, whichis essential for criminal action, the charge sheet show that on02.12.2019 the applicant No.3 made an application to theSuperintendent of Police, Parbhani alleging that the informant hasthreatened him that she will lodge the report of outraging of hermodesty against him. Further, in Mid-day Meal Scheme, the informantwas held liable by the Block Development Officer in the enquiry conductedagainst the informant, this shows earlier enmity. Further, to establish theessential ingredients of Section 341 of the I.P.C. vague and omnibusallegations are made against the applicants. Therefore, in view of the cran1896.21-6- observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.S.Madhanagopal and others (supra) and on the basis of such vagueand general allegations, compelling the applicants to face the trial,would be an abuse of the process of the court. The case is made outfor exercise of our powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. We aretherefore, inclined to allow the application, in the interest of justiceand to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, thefollowing order:-O R D E R I.The application stands allowed. II.The F.I.R. No. 374 of 2021 dated 22.07.2021 registered withNanalpeth police station, Parbhani, District Parbhani, for theoffences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and the consequential criminal proceedingbearing R.C.C. No. 502 of 2021 pending before the learnedChief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani, District Parbhani, arequashed and set aside to the extent of present applicants. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)rlj/