Judgment · High Court

(PER : ANIL S. KILOR, J.)

None appeared for respondent No. 2, though servedlong back.

Heard.

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up forfinal disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

923.APL.1605.2024 judge.odt 2 4. By the present application, filed under Section 528 ofthe Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("the BNSS", forshort) (Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), the prayeris made for quashing the chargesheet filed in crime No.236 of 2024dated 26.04.2024, registered with Khamgaon City Police Station, District Buldhana for the offence punishable under Sections 353and 186 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 131 and 132 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as well as Regular CriminalCase No. 431 of 2024 pending on the file of Judicial MagistrateFirst Class, Khamgaon.

It is the case of the prosecution that while respondentNo.2 was performing his duty as a ‘Homeguard’ in the Lok SabhaElection 2024, on 26.04.2024, the applicant obstructed him fromperforming his duty. On such complaint, the alleged offence cameto be registered.

Thereafter, simultaneously, the Collector directed the Tahsildar to inquire into the matter and accordingly, the Tahsildar

923.APL.1605.2024 judge.odt 3 called the respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 20.09.2024 forrecording his statement. Before the Tahsildar, the respondent No. 2stated that though there was an exchange of words, however, henever intended to file a criminal complaint against the applicant.

In the charge-sheet there are statements of two old-aged persons one Sau Alka Sudhakar Tambat, aged about 75 yearsand Dr. Sudhakar Tambat, aged about 86 years. Both do notsupport the case of the prosecution.

There is a statement of Head Constable SunitaKashyap. However, it appears that because she prevented theapplicant from exercising his right to vote on the date of theelection, he lodged a complaint against her on the same day. Thus, it appears that to counterblast the complaint of the applicant, therespondent No.2 was asked to lodge the complaint and it wassupported by the said witness Sunita.

The statement given by respondent No. 2 to the Tahsildar sufficiently disclosed that some incident took place, but it

923.APL.1605.2024 judge.odt 4 was not of the nature which would obstruct respondent No. 2 fromperforming his duty. Furthermore, he specifically stated that it wasnever his intention to lodge any criminal complaint against theapplicant or prosecute the applicant. Considering the statement ofrespondent No.2, it is evident that even if the trial is conducted thewhole exercise would be futile.

In the above-referred backdrop, though the learnedAPP strongly opposed the application and prayed for dismissal ofthe same, we are of the opinion that in the above referred facts andcircumstances, the applicant can not be forced to face the trial. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the presentapplication needs to be allowed.

The criminal proceeding bearing Regular CriminalCase No. 431 of 2024 and the Charge-sheet arising out of the FIRNo. 236 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 353

923.APL.1605.2024 judge.odt 5 and 186 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 131 and 132 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 registered with PoliceStation Khamgaon City, District Buldhana is hereby quashed andset aside. Rule accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. [PRAVIN S. PATIL, J] [ANIL S. KILOR, J.] Namrata