Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order:ORDER(1) The criminal application is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodgedby Girish Trimbak Satkar serving in the AssistantCommissioner’s Office on allegations that he is serving as Food Safety Officer which comes under the ambit of “publicservant” in view of provision of Section Section 87…
- Para 66. Per contra, learned APP for the State strongly opposedthe said contentions on the ground that during theinvestigation, involvement of the applicant is revealed and, therefore, the application deserves to be rejected. .....4/- Judgment8 apl1415.2547. After hearing both the sides and perusing the entireinvestigation papers…
Judgment
Judgment8 apl1415.251IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPURCRIMINAL APPLICATION APL NO.1415 OF 2025 Washim s/o Akhtar Jimari, aged 39 years, occupation: business, r/o near Memon JamatKhana, Ambekar Layout, Chandrapur, district Chandrapur. ….. Applicant.:: V E R S U S ::1. State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Chandrapur City Police Station, Chandrapur, district Chandrapur.
Food Safety Officer, Food and DrugAdministration (MS), Chandrapur. ….. Non-applicants.================================Shri A.A.Dhawas, Counsel for the Applicant. Shri K.R.Lule, APP for NA No.1/State.================================CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.DATE : 10/03/2026ORAL JUDGMENT1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respectiveparties. Admit. Heard finally by consent.2. By this application, the present applicant is seekingquashing of FIR in connection with Crime No.203/2023.....2/- Judgment8 apl1415.252registered with non-applicant No.1 police station for offencesunder Sections 188, 273, and 328 of the IPC and under Sections 30(2)(a), 26(2)(i), 26(2)(iv), and 59 of the FoodSafety and Standard Act, 2006.
The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodgedby Girish Trimbak Satkar serving in the AssistantCommissioner’s Office on allegations that he is serving as Food Safety Officer which comes under the ambit of “publicservant” in view of provision of Section Section 87 of the FoodSafety Act. It is alleged that on 28.3.2023, at about 1:30 pm, he along with pancha witness has visited “M/s.Bele PanMaterial and Kirana Shop” and after inspection, he foundprohibited food as per the State Government’s Notificationdated 15.7.2022. Accordingly, the stock of prohibited foodwas seized and panchanama was drawn. Owner of the Shop, namely Premkumar Bele, was interrogated and he disclosedthat he procured the said material from the present applicant......3/- Judgment8 apl1415.253 On the basis of the said statement, the applicant isarrayed as accused.
After registration of the crime, investigation wascarried out and after completion of the investigatoin, chargesheet was submitted against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted thatexcept statement of co-accused, there is absolutely nomaterial to connect the applicant with the alleged offence. The statement of co-accused is not admissible and, therefore, there is no prima facie material collected during theinvestigation to show involvement of the applicant in thealleged offence. In view of that, the FIR deserves to be quashed.
Per contra, learned APP for the State strongly opposedthe said contentions on the ground that during theinvestigation, involvement of the applicant is revealed and, therefore, the application deserves to be rejected. .....4/- Judgment8 apl1415.2547. After hearing both the sides and perusing the entireinvestigation papers, it reveals that during the raid, the co-accused was found in possession of the contraband articlesand, therefore, he was enquired as to from which place he hasprocured the said contraband articles and it revealed that theapplicant has supplied the said contraband articles. 8. Thus, investigation papers reveals that, except thestatement of the co-accused, there is no material to connectthe applicant with the alleged offence. Moreover, theinvestigating officer has not conducted any investigating toascertain whether really the applicant was connected withsupply of contraband articles or not.9.
The law relating to quashing of FIRs was explained bythe Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana andors vs. Bhajan Lal and ors, reported in 1992 Supplementary(1) SCC 335 wherein principles have been laid down whichare required to be considered while considering applicationsfor quashing of the FIRs, which read as under:.....5/- Judgment8 apl1415.255
(a) where the allegations made in the FirstInformation Report or the complaint, even ifthey are taken at their face value andaccepted in their entirety do not prima facieconstitute any offence or make out a caseagainst the accused; (b) where the allegations in the FirstInformation Report and other materials, ifany, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclosea cognizable offence, justifying an investi-gation by police officers under Section156(1) of the Code except under an order ofa Magistrate within the purview of Section155(2) of the Code; (c) where the uncontroverted allegationsmade in the FIR or 'complaint and theevidence collected in support of the same donot disclose the commission of any offenceand make out a case against the accused; (d) where the allegations in the FIR do notconstitute a cognizable offence but constituteonly a non-cognizable offence, noinvestigation is permitted by a police officerwithout an order of a Magistrate ascontemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (e) where the allegations made in the FIR orcomplaint are so absurd and inherentlyimprobable on the basis of which no prudent.....6/- Judgment8 apl1415.256person can ever reach a just conclusion thatthere is sufficient ground for proceedingagainst the accused; (f) where there is an express legal barengrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which acriminal proceeding is instituted) to theinstitution and continuance of theproceedings and/or where there is a specificprovision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for thegrievance of the aggrieved party; (g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestlyattended with mala fide and/or where theproceeding is maliciously instituted with anulterior motive for wreaking vengeance onthe accused and with a view to spite him dueto private and personal grudge.
10.
Operative part
In view of the above parameters, as no prima facie ismade out against the , the application deserves to beallowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order:ORDER(1) The criminal application is allowed......7/- Judgment8 apl1415.257(2) FIR in connection with Crime No.203/2023 registeredwith non-applicant No.1 police station for offences under Sections 188, 273, and 328 of the IPC and under Sections30(2)(a), 26(2)(i), 26(2)(iv), and 59 of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 and consequent proceeding arising out ofthe same bearing Sessions Case No.122/2024 pending on thefile of learned 4th Additional Sessions Court, Chandrapur, district Chandrapur are hereby quashed and set aside to theextent of present applicant Washim s/o Akhtar Jimari. Application stands disposed of. (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) !! BrWankhede !!...../-
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order:ORDER(1) The criminal application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860; FoodSafety and Standard Act, 2006; Food Safety andStandard Act, 2006.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.