AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Petitioner has invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing and setting aside the Regular Criminal Case No. 259 of 2024 arising out of First Information Report No. vide C. R. No. 198 of 2023 registered with Sanjaynagar Police Station, Sangli, for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 332, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. (for short, ‘IPC’.)
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner at length and the learned APP for the Respondent–State.
Perused the record more particularly, the FIR, medical certificate, as well as the documents pointed out by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, i.e. the statement of one Akash and the lists of Directors of Lord Omkareshwar Nagari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Ichalkaranji, and Lord Jiveshwar Nagari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Sangli.
To determine the controversy, it would be appropriate to reproduce the following relevant averments in the FIR as under.:-
“…दुपारी १.३० वा. चे सुमारास माझे केबिनमध्ये काही कामानिमित्त रोहन पोटे व सत्यजीत हावरे असे आले होते. त्यांचे पाठोपाठ अंकुश केरीपाळे हे माझे केबिनमध्ये आले व मोबाईलचा कॅमेरा चालु करून मला एकेरी भाषेत तुझ्याकडे लोक का आले आहेत, येथे एजंट का आले आहेत, असे मोठ्याने बोलत माझ्या अंगावर येवु लागलेत. त्यावेळी मी त्यांना हे लोक माझेकडे शासकिय काम घेवुन आले आहेत. असे म्हणत असताना अंकुश केरीपाळे यांनी ही माणसे कोण, त्यांचे काय काम, हे इथे कसे, असे म्हणुन मला शिवीगाळ करू लागले. त्योवळी माझ्या कार्यालयातील कनिष्ठ लिपी अमर महेकर, संतोष मदने, श्रीनिवास घोडके, मोटर वाहन निरीक्षक गालिंदे असे येवुन त्यास समजावुन सांगु लागले. तरीही अंकुश केरीपाळे याने मला धक्काबुक्की करीत हाताला धरून ओढले. व माझे हातातील सरकारी कागदपत्रे ओढुन भिरकावुन दिली. व टेबलवरची कागदे ही विस्कटुन मला अर्वाच्च शिवीगाळ करू लागले. त्यावेळी वरील माझ्या स्टाफने सोडवा सोडवी केली. त्यावेळी पुन्हा अंकुश केरीपाळे यांनी माझ्या हाताला धरून ओढत “चल गेटचे बाहेर, तूला जीवंत ठेवचत नाही,” म्हणून मला गेट पर्यंत ओढत नेले. त्यावेळी तेथे माझेकडे कार्यालयीन कामाकरीता आलेले रोहन पोटे, रा रॉकेल लाईन वखारभाग, सांगली, सत्यजीत हावरे, रा इचलकरंजी, जि कोल्हापुर व माझे वरील सर्व सहकारी असे माझे जवळ येवुन त्यांनी मला त्याचे तावडीतुन सोडवुन घेतले. त्यानंतर अंकुश केरीपाळे याने आमच्या कार्यालयाचा गेटचा रस्ता रोखुन धरला व आमचे कार्यालयीन सर्व शासकिय काम त्याने बंद पाडले.”
A bare perusal of the above averments reveals that in paragraph No. 2, a specific averment appears against the Petitioner that “he entered into the Informant's cabin and turned on his mobile camera, shooting a video from his mobile phone, abused the Informant in filthy language, there was a scuffle with him, and then dragged him and flung the documents aside. The said averments themselves prima facie indicate that the ingredients of Section 353 of the IPC are attracted against the Petitioner.
Apart from that, the medical certificate produced on record indicates that the Informant has sustained two injuries on his left shoulder and left forearm, which supports and corroborates the allegations in the FIR.
Besides, a bare perusal of the statement of Akash reveals that on the day of the incident, the Petitioner was present in the office and was shooting a video from his mobile in front of the informant's office. A quarrel was going on between them. The said statement does not help the Petitioner seek the remedy of quashing the FIR; on the contrary, it indicates that the Petitioner was present in the office and that an altercation was ongoing between the Petitioner and the informant.
Thus, it prima facie seems that the ingredients of Section 353 of the IPC are attracted against the Petitioner in the present case. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner in that regard. No case is made out to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
Consequently, the Petition, being bereft of merits, stands dismissed.
Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
The Petition is disposed of.