2008crn791.09.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 791 OF 2009 Ashok s/o Sitaram Suryavanshi aged about 54 yrs., r/o Renuka Nagar, Dabki Road, Akola. .. APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra .. RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Sachin Zoting, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. D. M. Kale, A. P. P. for the respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED :- 20TH AUGUST, 2009. P. C. : 1. The applicant want that First Information Report No. 240 of 2008 filed by Old City Police Station, Akola be quashed and set aside. 2. I have heard learned Advocates on both sides. F.I.R. complainant Nanibai has lodged FIR against two persons namely Vicky Jadhv, nephew of the applicant and the applicant. The FIR is divided in two parts – firstly, it relates to an incident of 10/10/2009 where allegations are levelled against said Vicky as regards outraging modesty of daughter of Nanibai. The second part of the FIR relates to present applicant entering into the house of Nanibai and ordering her to produce said Vicky within 24 hours, failing which daughter of Nanibai would be looked after. 3. In the course of investigation, statements of other persons have 2008crn791.09.odt 2/3 been recorded by name; Jyoti Daud and Archana Gaiki. These two witnesses have stated on the line of the complainant. Learned Advocate Mr. Zoting submitted that at the most offence under Section 504 IPC can be said to have been committed, which is a non cognizable offence. He also submitted that the applicant was working in the police department and he had entered the house of Nanibai for the purposes of making inquiry regarding whereabouts of his nephew, and therefore, whatever he had done, was under the colour of his office and hence sanction under Section 197 Cri. P. C. is not obtained. He further submitted that the police has wrongly put Section 447 IPC as an offence said to have been committed by the applicant and prayed for quashing of FIR. 4. Mr. Kale, the learned A. P. P. submitted that prima facie case is made out with reference to the utterances made by the applicant to Nanibai which utterances are confirmed by the other witnesses. 5. After having heard the learned Advocates on both sides and on perusal of the record, there is nothing to suggest that the applicant had approached Nanibai on duty. Even if, the applicant said to have approached on duty, the role attributed to the applicant is not in confirmity with the duties as Police Constable. The words used by the applicant revealed from the FIR are; “Maza bhacha ghari aala nahi tewha tumhi 24 tasat tyala aanun dya, nahitar tumche mulila pahun ghein”. Uttering these words and conduct of the applicant cannot be considered as a conduct of police officer or police staff and certainly the applicant cannot take shelter of the fact that he was working as Police Constable and making inquiry about his nephew. The role played by the applicant is apparently beyond the scope of his employment. 2008crn791.09.odt 3/3 6. In any case, the question whether sanction is required or not and whether it will be granted by the State is a point to be decided at later point of time. Even if, it is considered that police cannot take cognizance in respect of offence under Section 504 IPC, prima facie case under Section 448 IPC is made out because the applicant entered the house of Nanibai and administered threats to her. It is seen of course, prima facie he has committed offence in the house of Nanibai with reference to intimidation covered by Section 504 IPC. Therefore, prime facie case for house trespass is made out, which is cognizable offence. 7. In my view, prima facie case is made out against the applicant hence there is no question of quashing of the First Information Report. The petition cannot be entertained. Hence, dismissed. JUDGE wwl