JAGANNATH S/O. SHESHRAO THAKARE v. STATE OF MAH. THR. PSO PS WALGAON, DIST. AMRAVATI AND ANOTHER

the offence punishable under Sections 294, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner primly canvased that the lodgment of the police report itself is actuated with malafide and has been registered to pressurize the petitioner in pending civil litigation. Besides that, the petitioner would submit that the contents of the First Information Report at its face value do not make out a case falling under charged offences.

4. The State as well as learned Counsel for the informant resisted this petition by contending that the informant, his family members and two independent witnesses have consistently stated about the occurrence. Moreover, it is submitted that there was no reason for the informant to make false allegations since already the civil suit was pending long between the parties.

5. We have carefully examined the police papers, which were made available for our perusal. The petitioner and the informant are neighbouring residents. It is the informant's case that on 14.07.2022, around 10.00 a.m. the petitioner came to the house of the informant, abused him in a filthy language and said that the Civil Court may decide the matter whenever, it desires, but I will see you right now. The police have recorded the statement of the informant's wife, mother and two witnesses namely

2

Raosaheb Dhoke and Pramod Khandare. All the witnesses similarly stated that at the relevant time, the petitioner expressed that the Civil Court may decide the matter, but he would see the informant's entire family. Moreover, abused in the name of the informant's mother.

6. It is the first submission of the petitioner that the entire action of filing a report is actuated with malafide. In order to convince the submission, the petitioner took us through the background of the litigation. Rather it is not in dispute that both are residing adjacent to each other. There happened to be a boundary dispute in between them. The petitioner has filed a police report on 03.07.2020 alleging the offence punishable under Sections 342, 294, 506(b) of the Indian Penal Code. It is informed that after the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the informant, which is pending. The allegations in said report also pertains to a land dispute between the parties.

7. The petitioner has produced a copy of Regular Civil Suit No.9/2021, which was filed by the petitioner against the informant and other family members alleging unauthorized obstruction. The said suit for injunction was filed on 06.01.2021. Moreover, the petitioner has applied for grant of temporary injunction, which was granted by the Civil Court on 06.05.2022, of which a copy is tendered for our perusal. Not only that, the petitioner has also taken an action in terms of Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure for breach of injunction order vide application filed

3

in the month of July 2022. According to the petitioner, since the informant was facing a criminal trial and an injunction order was running against him, to pressurize the petitioner, with ulterior motive, report has been lodged.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the police report merely states that the abuses were given in the name of the mother of the informant, which would not constitute an offence punishable under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. S. Madhanagopal and Anr. Vs. K. Lalitha [2022 SCC Online SC 2030] with particular reference to para 9 of the decision wherein it has been observed that mere abuses in humiliating language itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code. It has also observed that there must be further proof to establish that such words have caused annoyance to others. Secondly, the petitioner relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Fiona Shrikhande Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. [(2013) 14 SCC 44] to contend that in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, there must be intentional insult of such a degree that it should provoke a person to break the public peace.

9. We have considered the above submissions and gone through the police statements. It reveals that though the crime has been registered on 15.07.2022, however, the statements of witnesses though available have

4

been recorded after one month. Particularly, we have seen that the independent witnesses appear to be having acquaintance with the informant on account of sale of milk. The entire material has to be considered while recording a finding about genuineness or otherwise of the police report. The series of act denotes that already the informant was facing criminal prosecution, civil suit was filed in which two months before temporary injunction order was passed and in the same month, the petitioner took an action for contempt of the order of the Civil Court. In such a background, there is high probability of filing the report to give counter check or to pressurize in pending civil litigation.

10. We have also examined the material and found that the police report alleges that the petitioner uttered about the civil dispute, which is pending. Rather the petitioner was armed with injunction order, hence, he has no occasion to pick up quarrel on account of pending civil suit, but it was the informant, who was aggrieved by such adverse order. Thus, the said circumstance also improbabalizes the occurrence. Moreover, the statement of family members and the persons from acquaintance were only recorded that too after considerable length. Besides that, the report merely indicates the abuses and thus, it is difficult to hold existence of prima facie material to that extent.

11. In order to weed out unmeritorious litigation, this Court is vested with the inherent powers which are to be used to prevent the abuse of the

5

process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajanlal and others [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335] in para 102 of its decision has laid down the parameters/guidelines under which the inherent powers to be exercised. The case squarely falls in criteria No.7, which is one of the reason for quashing. If the criminal prosecution is manifestly attended with malafide or maliciously instituted with ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance, it can be quashed. Taking overall view of the matter and considering the entire material collected during the course of the investigation, a case is made out for quashing for the aforesaid reasons.

12. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. We hereby quash and set aside the charge-sheet (R.C.C. No.325/2023) arising out of the First Information Report in Crime No.226/2022 registered with Police Station Walgaon, District Amravati for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)

RGurnule

6