1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1888 of 2009 (Deorao s/o Bhujangrao Phuke and another vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. B.R.Sable, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. D.R.Korde, APP, for respondent State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:8/9/2009 ... P.C.: 1. Heard Counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. 2. FIR vide crime No.11/2009, dt.2nd April, 2009, lodged and registered at Shirsala, Taluka Parali (Vaijnath) Police Station, dist. Beed, for an offense under Section 15 of the Noise Pollution Act and Section 188 read with 34 of IPC and Section 33(N)/131 of the Bombay Police Act is sought to be quashed by the applicant no.1 Deorao and his brother (applicant no.2) Munjabhau. 2 3. Having gone through the FIR at page 21, I find that a religious programme was organized infront of house of petitioner no.2 Munjabhau where speakers were played, in excessive volume, in high decibels, without any permit/authority to ply them. The speakers and the function was in full swing in the midnight on 2.4.2009 at 00.30 hours, though there is ban to do so. 4. The contention that there was no seizure of the loudspeaker or nothing is recovered from the accused/applicant is not to be seen at the stage when quashment of the FIR is sought. 5. Reading the FIR, I find that the applicant Deorao s/o Bhujangrao Phuke, who is claimed to be Secretary in Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Majalgaon, was not present at the place. His role, remotely, can be said to be involved. When the Police Officer Jagannath had been to the place, it was applicant no. 3 2, who was asked to inhibit the said playing of speakers who did not do it. 6. Consequently, I find that the FIR, as against applicant no.1 Deorao s/o Bhujangrao Phuke will not be maintainable as he repeatedly stressed that it was out of political vendetta he has been roped in the matter. Keeping prosecution against applicant no.1 Deorao Bhujangrao Phuke will certainly amount to persecution to him - it will be a humiliation as stakes to his service are also involved. It was claimed by said Deorao that at the material time he was not at the village. However, at this stage, it need not be looked into as it may be a part of evidence. The fact remains, without adding or subtracting anything from the FIR, the role played by applicant Deorao is not surfaced. Consequently, continuation of prosecution against applicant no.1 will tantamount to cause other hindrances to him, hence, it is quashed to the extent 4 of applicant no.1 Deorao s/o Bhujangrao Phuke. Application partly allowed in above terms. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/1888-09crapl