Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Bombay at Goa heard a criminal writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner, Dr. Surya Prakash Pandey, sought quashing of FIR No. 51/2020 dated 27 March 2020 registered at Calangute Police Station, which was lodged by respondent No.3, Police Sub-Inspector Vishal Mandrekar, under Sections 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complainant alleged that on 27 March 2020, during a COVID-19 lockdown nakabandi at Dolphin Circle, Naikavaddo, Calangute, the petitioner, driving a red Mercedes car, was stopped by police personnel. The complainant asked the driver where he was going; the petitioner allegedly responded rudely, asked why the road was blocked, claimed to know influential people, declared he fed 250 police personnel, and threatened: "You made a great blunder by obstructing my way, I will show you just now what I will do." The complainant further stated that after ten minutes the petitioner returned and said he had attended a meeting with the Chief Minister the previous day. The complainant expressed apprehension of danger to his life and service and requested legal action. The petitioner argued before the High Court that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not constitute offences under Sections 353 or 506 IPC. It was submitted that Section 353 IPC requires assault or criminal force used to deter a public servant from discharging duty, but no such assault or force was alleged. Further, there was no specific threat of injury to person, reputation or property as required for criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC. The petitioner relied on Manik Taneja and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Anr. and Rohan Ashok Khaunte v. State of Goa through Police Inspector and Ors. in support of quashing. The petitioner also explained that he was a doctor by qualification running a hospitality business in Calangute, was actively involved in social service, and during the lockdown was providing meals to police personnel; he had a travel permit and was on his way to meet the then Police Inspector of Calangute Police Station when stopped. He offered apology and proposed to donate Rs. 50,000/-, 25 raincoats and 25 umbrellas to the Goa Police Welfare Society. The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the ingredients of Section 353 IPC were admittedly absent, but argued that the allegations did make out a prima facie case under Section 506 IPC. He contended that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases, and that the offence was a crime against society, not just against the complainant. The court noted the submissions and the grounds for quashing under Section 482 CrPC, which permit interference when the allegations in the FIR, taken at their face value, do not constitute any offence. The court considered the veracity of the complaint, the nature of the alleged utterances, and the absence of assault or criminal force. However, the provided judgment text ends during the submissions of the Additional Public Prosecutor and does not contain the final operative order. Therefore, no final decision or direction can be extracted from the available material.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India - Petition sought quashing of FIR No. 51/2020 on ground that allegations did not disclose offences; court considered that allegations in complaint must be read as a whole and accepted as true; if no offence is disclosed, FIR can be quashed; additional public prosecutor conceded no case under Section 353 IPC but asserted Section 506 prima facie case (Paras 2, 4-12). B) Indian Penal Code - Assault or Criminal Force to Deter Public Servant - Section 353 IPC - Ingredients require assault or use of criminal force; petition argued no such act occurred during nakabandi encounter; prosecution conceded ingredients absent - court noted concession (Paras 5, 12). C) Indian Penal Code - Criminal Intimidation - Section 506 IPC - Threat of injury to person, reputation or property; petitioner argued alleged utterances did not amount to specific threats; prosecution argued they made out prima facie case; court examined both positions (Paras 5-6, 12-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR No. 51/2020 dated 27.03.2020 registered under Sections 353 and 506 IPC against the petitioner should be quashed on the ground that the allegations do not disclose offences under those sections.
Law Points
- Ingredients of Section 353 IPC require assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharging duty
- Ingredients of Section 506 IPC require threat of injury to person
- reputation or property
- Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases
- Quashing of FIR permissible when allegations do not constitute any offence
- Allegations in complaint must be read as whole and accepted as true for quashing
