IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1613 OF 2001 Ramesh S. Pujari & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.S.P.Kanuga for the Petitioners. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, A.P.P for Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 16th July 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned A.P.P for the respondents. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the petitioner has prayed for quashing a prosecution for an offence punishable under the Bombay Police Act, 1951 initiated against the petitioners. The allegation against the petitioners is of violation of provisions of section 102 of the said Act of 1951. 2. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that only a vague allegation has been made against the petitioners that they obstructed the traffic on a public road near Sukh Sagar Junction. : 2 : He submitted that such a vague allegation will not attract section 102 of the said Act of 1951. The second contention is that the investigation was made by the police officer in case of a non cognizable offence in contravention of sub section 2 of section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He, therefore, submitted that a case is made out for quashing the proceedings. The learned A.P.P submitted that on plain reading of section 102 of the said Act of 1951, an obstruction in street or public place in any manner whatsoever attracts section 102 and therefore, no case is made out for quashing. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. It must be stated here that rule was issued by this Court on 21st January 2003 and till today reply has not been filed. The only allegation made against the petitioners reads thus: "The herementioned person on 03/11/2001 at 23.30 O’clock, obstructed the traffic on public road near Sukh Sagar Junction within the territory of this Hon’ble Court and hence proceedings u/s.102-22-51 were initiated." It will be necessary to refer to the provision of : 3 : section 102 of the said Act of 1951 which reads thus: "102. No person shall cause obstruction in any street, or public place by allowing any animal or vehicle which has to be loaded or unloaded, or take up or set down passengers, to remain or stand therein longer than may be necessary for such purpose or by leaving any vehicle standing or fastening any cattle therein, or using any part of a street or public place as a halting place for vehicles or cattle, or by leaving any box, bale, package or other thing whatsoever in or upon a street for an unreasonable length of time or contrary to any regulation made and published by a competent authority by exposing anything for sale or setting out anything for sale in or upon any stall, booth, board, cask, basket or in any other way whatsoever." There is no specific allegation made against the petitioners that they allowed any animal or vehicle to obstruct any street or public place. There is no allegation that any vehicle or cattle was left by the petitioners on a street or a public place. There is also no allegation that a street or a public place was : 4 : used by the petitioners as a halting place for vehicles or cattle or any obstruction was made by the petitioners by leaving any box, bale, packages or other thing whatsoever on street for a unreasonable length of time. There is no allegation that the petitioners are exposing anything for sale in or upon a stall, booth, board, cask, basket etc. 4. The words "in any other way whatsoever" in section 102 of the said Act of 1951 will have to be read ejusdem generis and not independently of the earlier part of the section. Therefore, it is not possible to accept that section 102 was attracted. The allegations made against the petitioners are very vague. 5. There is no reply filed to the assertions made in paragraph No.6 of the petition where it is alleged that investigation was carried out without prior permission of the learned Magistrate. 6. Hence, a case is made out for exercising power under section 482 of the said Code. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). There will be no orders as to costs. : 5 : (A.S.Oka,J)