Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Doctor in Assault Case Due to Lack of Prima Facie Evidence and Malafide Intent. Allegations of Assault on Advocate During Court Proceedings Found Baseless as Incident Occurred Outside Court Premises and Complainant Was Not on Official Duty.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 55
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The applicant, Dr. Sanjay Andhare, filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR No.60/2015 registered at Police Station, Paranda, for offences under Sections 353, 355, 504 and 186 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged by respondent no.3, Sundarao Humbe, an advocate, alleging that on 8.4.2015, the applicant assaulted him and used abusive language while he was on duty as a public servant. The applicant contended that the FIR was malafide and lacked prima facie case. The High Court examined the allegations and found that the complainant was not a public servant at the relevant time, as the incident occurred outside the court premises and he was not on official duty. The court noted that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were missing, and the prosecution appeared to be an abuse of process of law. Consequently, the court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Abuse of Process - FIR quashed where allegations did not make out prima facie case and prosecution was malafide - Held that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of court and to secure ends of justice (Paras 1-10).

B) Indian Penal Code - Assault on Public Servant - Section 353 IPC - Essential Ingredients - Complainant not a public servant at relevant time - Incident occurred outside court premises and complainant was not on duty - Held that Section 353 IPC not attracted (Paras 5-7).

C) Indian Penal Code - Assault with Intent to Dishonour - Section 355 IPC - Essential Ingredients - No evidence of assault or use of criminal force - Allegations vague and contradictory - Held that Section 355 IPC not made out (Paras 5-7).

D) Indian Penal Code - Intentional Insult to Provoke Breach of Peace - Section 504 IPC - Essential Ingredients - No intentional insult or provocation proved - Allegations of abusive language not substantiated - Held that Section 504 IPC not attracted (Paras 5-7).

E) Indian Penal Code - Obstructing Public Servant - Section 186 IPC - Essential Ingredients - Complainant not a public servant - No obstruction to public duty - Held that Section 186 IPC not applicable (Paras 5-7).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the FIR and criminal proceedings against the applicant for offences under Sections 353, 355, 504 and 186 of IPC should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC for lack of prima facie case and malafide prosecution.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The FIR No.60/2015 registered at Police Station, Paranda, for offences under Sections 353, 355, 504 and 186 of IPC and all consequential proceedings are quashed.

Law Points

  • Quashing of FIR under Section 482 CrPC
  • Lack of prima facie case
  • Malafide prosecution
  • Abuse of process of law
  • Essential ingredients of Sections 353
  • 355
  • 504
  • 186 IPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2015 LawText (BOM) (10) 44

Criminal Application No.3494/2015

2015-10-15

A.B. Chaudhari, Indira K. Jain

R.N. Dhorde (Senior Advocate) i/b V.N. Shelke for applicant, K.S. Patil (APP) for respondent nos.1 & 2, V.D. Salunke with K.R. Doke for respondent no.3

Sanjay s/o Shridhar Andhare

The State of Maharashtra, The Police Inspector, Police Station, Paranda, Sundarao s/o Bhausaheb Humbe

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR

Remedy Sought

Quashing of FIR No.60/2015 and all consequential proceedings

Filing Reason

Allegations of assault and abuse by applicant against respondent no.3, an advocate, during court proceedings

Issues

Whether the FIR discloses prima facie case for offences under Sections 353, 355, 504 and 186 IPC? Whether the prosecution is malafide and an abuse of process of law?

Submissions/Arguments

Applicant argued that the complainant was not a public servant and the incident occurred outside court premises, hence no offence made out. Respondent no.3 argued that he was on duty as an advocate and was assaulted by the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The essential ingredients of Sections 353, 355, 504 and 186 IPC were not made out as the complainant was not a public servant at the relevant time and the incident did not occur during official duty. The FIR was malafide and an abuse of process of law, warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC.

Judgment Excerpts

This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing FIR No.60/2015 dated 8.4.2015 registered at Police Station, Paranda, for the offences u/ss.353, 355, 504 and 186 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant was not a public servant at the relevant time and the incident occurred outside the court premises. The FIR is quashed.

Procedural History

The applicant filed Criminal Application No.3494/2015 under Section 482 CrPC before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) seeking quashing of FIR No.60/2015. The court heard the parties and passed the judgment on 15.10.2015.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 353, 355, 504, 186
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Doctor in Assault Case Due to Lack of Prima Facie Evidence and Malafide Intent. Allegations of Assault on Advocate During Court Proceedings Found Baseless as Incident Occurred Outside Court Premises and Complaina...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Accused to Send Cheque for Handwriting Expert Opinion in NI Act Case — Rejection of Application by Magistrate Set Aside. Accused's Right to Lead Defence Evidence Includes Right to Seek Expert Opinion on Disputed Signature U...