Dist. Aurangabad v. The State of Maharashtra
Facts
cran3971.24-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD3 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3971 OF 20241.Mohammad Isa S/o Mohammad YasinAge- 44 Years, Occ- Business,R/o- Flat no- 1, Arsalan Apartment,Ahabab Colony, Katkat gate Road,Aurangabad.2. Matin S/o Hiraji Patel Age- 35 Years, Occ- Business,R/o- Galli No- 28, Indra Nagar, Baijipura, Aurangabad3. Shaikh Tayyab S/o Shaikh NoorAge- 27 Years, Occ- Business,R/o- H.No- 3-4-221, Near M.R.Palace, Rahim nagar, Jasvantpura, Aurangabad.4. Satish S/o Asaram GaikwadAge- 40 Years, Occ- Business,R/o- Galli No- 10, Sanjay Nagar, Mukundwadi, Aurangabad.5. Yogesh s/o Gulabrao BanAge 34 yrs. Occ. Business,R/o- H.No.J-2I /8,J sector, Cidco N-2, Mukundwadi,Tq. Dist. Aurangabad.6. Amit S/o Sudhakar BhuigalAge- 44 Years, Occ- Business,R/o- H.No- 1-B-4-39, Kile Ark, VIP road, Aurangabad.7. Milind S/o Pundlik BordeAge- 42, Occ- Business,R/o-Plot no- 36, Ekta Nagar, Jatwada Road, Harsool, Aurangabad.8. Mohammad Jaweed S/oMohammad Isaque
Legal Reasoning
cran3971.24-5- prevention of disorder states that carrying out of all activitiesmentioned can be prohibited for preservation of public peace or thepublic safety by a notification and such public safety therefore, as perour contention, can be acted by a public office also. Further, asregards offence under section 143 of the I.P.C. is concerned, theperson has to be a member of unlawful assembly and for thatpurpose we will have to consider the definition of unlawful assemblygiven in section 141 of I.P.C. In all 5 acts have been covered forwhich design or the purpose of five or more persons would amount tounlawful assembly.6.We are more concerned with the explanation to Section 141of I.P.C. which states that “the assembly which was not unlawfulwhen it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawfulassembly.” Therefore, prima facie, we could see that after the orderdated 27.4.2024 was brought to the notice of the applicants and theparty workers that only the informant or the person who wants tolodge the F.I.R. should remain in the police station and others shouldgo, still they remained there. That means, thereafter gathering ofpeople or that assembly which was there for some purpose, becameunlawful assembly. Therefore, according to us even prima facie, theoffence under Section 143 of I.P.C. is getting attracted. The same isthe case as regards Section 188 of the I.P.C. However, for section cran3971.24-6- 188 of I.P.C. there has been hurdle of section 195 of Cr.P.C. Section195(1) of Cr.P.C. states that no court shall take cognizance of anyoffences punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) ofI.P.C. except on the complaint in writing of the public servantconcerned or of some other public servant to whom he isadministratively subordinate. However, when here section 188 givenalongwith Section 143 of I.P.C. which is cognizable, then it would befor the concerned Court to consider as to whether charge/particularsof offence should be framed for the offence punishable under Section188 of I.P.C. or not. Of course, this cannot be a ground forentertaining the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Theapplication stands rejected at the threshold. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)rlj/
Arguments
cran3971.24-2- Age- 60 Years, Occ- Business,R/o- Block no- 6, ST colony, Aurangabad.9.Pankaj S/o Baliram BansodeAge- 42 Years, Occ- Business,R/o- Plot no-10, Maske Petrol Pump,Satara Parisar, Aurangabad.10. Purushottam S/o Khushalrao DabhaleAge- 59 Years, Occ- Business,R/o- H.No. 5-15-70 P, Bhimnagar,Bhawsingpura, Aurangabad.11.Aleem Khan Yaseen KhanAge- 54 Years, Occ- Business,R/o- H.No- 1-7-88 Begumpura,Makbara Road, Tal- Dist. Aurangabad.12. Arundhati Vjay ShirsatAge- 60 Years, Occ- Social Service,R/o- Plot no- 11, Gokul Colony,Jawahar Nagar, Akola, Maharashtra.13. Afsar Khan S/o Yasin KhanAge 55 yrs. Occ. Business,R/o- Begumpura, Bibika Makbara RoadTal- Dist. Aurangabad....Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra...Respondent ...Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Rameez K. Pathan APP for Respondent No.1: Mrs. P. R. Bharaswadkar ….. CORAM:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATED:25th JULY, 2025 PER COURT :- 1.The present application has been filed for quashment of the cran3971.24-3- proceeding in S.C.C. No.13669 of 2024, pending before the learnedJudicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad, arising out of the F.I.R.vide C.R. No. 163 of 2024 registered with City Chowk Police stationAurangabad, for the offences punishable under Section 143 and 188of I.P.C. and Section 135 of Maharashtra Police Act.2.Learned advocate for the applicants, after taking us throughthe F.I.R., submits that the applicants are party workers of a politicalparty and applicant No.13 was contesting the Loksabha election of2024. Some news was circulated on social media against the partyand therefore, he wanted to lodge the F.I.R. He was with applicantNo.5. However, the informant who is a police constable attached toCity Chowk police station, lodged the F.I.R. by saying that all theapplicants alongwith other 40 to 50 supporters went to the policestation. Then it is stated that it was pointed out to the applicants andothers that the order has been promulgated by the Commissioner ofPolice, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar on 27.04.2024 under section37(1) and (3) of the Maharashtra Police Act, thereby prohibiting morethan five persons for coming together. He states that inspite ofbringing the said order to the notice of the applicants and others andrequesting them that only the informant should remain there andother should go, still they refused to leave the police station and theywere there for lodging the F.I.R. and under such circumstances, he cran3971.24-4- filed the F.I.R. The ingredients of offences are not transpiring andeven the other documents in the charge sheet are not sufficient toattract the ingredients of the offences.3.Learned A.P.P. objects the application and submits thatingredients get attracted when the applicants had refused to followthe order promulgated by the Commissioner of Police, ChhatrapatiSambhajinagar.4.The important point to be noted is the copy of the orderpassed by the Commissioner of Police, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagarunder Section 37(1) and (3) of the Maharashtra Police Act dated27.4.2024 has been annexed, which was to be operative between29.4.2024 to 13.5.2024. The incident is stated to have taken place on12.5.2024 that means, it was within the said period of existence oforder of promulgation by the Commissioner of Police.5.It is then stated that the applicants alongwith around 40 to50 supporters had gone to the police station, which is stated to be forlodging the F.I.R. However, even after the order dated 27.04.2024was pointed out to them, still they remained in police station. As perSection 37 of the Maharashtra Police Act, which empowers theCommissioner and the District Magistrate to prohibit certain acts for