Bombay High Court
Mohd Abdul Moiz S/O. Abdul Sattar And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 8 March, 2019
Author: R.G.Avachat
Bench: S.S. Shinde, R.G. Avachat
cr.appln.3099-18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3099 OF 2018
1. Mohd. Abdul Moiz s/o. Abdul Sattar,
Age : 35 years, Occ. Private job,
r/o. Nageshwar Mandir Road, Hatai,
Itwara, Nanded
(Application dismissed as withdrawn
against applicant no.1 vide Court's
order dated 08.02.2019)
2. Shaikh Wajed s/o. Shaikh Galib,
Age : 35 years, Occ. Auto Driver,
r/o. Karbala, Momin Pura Chowfala,
Nanded ..Applicants
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector,
Nanded Gramin Police Station,
Dist. Nanded
2. Balaji Sinha s/o. Omprakash Thakur,
Age : Major, Occ. Business,
r/o. D-48, M.I.D.C. CIDCO,
Nanded ..Respondents
----
Mr. A.P.Gaikwad, Advocate for applicants
Mr. R.V.Dasalkar, APP for respondent no.1
Mr. S.S.Bora, Advocate for respondent no.2
----
::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 19:09:06 :::
2 cr.appln.3099-18
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
R.G. AVACHAT, JJ.
RESERVED ON : FEBRUARY 18, 2019
PRONOUNCED ON : MARCH 08, 2019
ORDER (PER R.G.AVACHAT, J. ) :
This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initially filed by two applicants. Applicant no.1 - Mohd. Abdul Moiz s/o. Abdul Sattar, however, withdrew from the application.
By this application, applicant no.2 - Shaikh Wajed s/o. Shaikh Galib seeks quashment of the FIR No.145 of 2018 dated 21.04.2018 registered with Nanded Gramin Police Station, Nanded, for the offence punishable under Section 384 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard Mr.Gaikwad, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned APP for respondent no.1 and Mr.Bora, learned Counsel for respondent no.2.
3. The FIR has been lodged by respondent no.2, who is in the business of processing, bottling and selling of mineral water by and under the brand name ::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 19:09:06 ::: 3 cr.appln.3099-18 'Aqua Cold'. Respondent no.2 has his business place in M.I.D.C., CIDCO, Nanded. It alleged that as there was some function at the house of the applicant, he had purchased two boxes containing 24 mineral water bottles from the distributor/employee engaged by respondent no.2. It was found that one of the sealed water bottles contained a dead insect. The applicant approached the Food Analyst to have the water tested. The report of analysis confirmed the water bottle to have contained dead insect. The applicant, therefore, approached the District Consumer Forum for appropriate relief.
4. According to learned Counsel for the applicant, respondent no.2 has filed a false and frivolous FIR against the applicant and three others with a view to prevent the applicant and others from going public with the matter of drinking water containing dead insect. The applicant is a rickshaw driver by profession. For taking advise in the matter ::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 19:09:06 ::: 4 cr.appln.3099-18 regarding water having been contaminated, the applicant had approached one Naeem Khan. Said Naeem Khan is accused no.1 in the impugned FIR. He had approached respondent no.2 and informed about the matter. Respondent no.2, in turn, asked to approach the distributor. Respondent no.2 feared of his business may be ruined if the matter goes public, was ready to fulfill any condition so as to pursue the applicant not to approach the Food and Drugs Administration. According to learned Counsel, respondent no.2 lodged the report against the applicant and three others, alleging them to have made demand of Rs.10,00,000/- in consideration for not going public with the fact that the water contained dead insect. It is alleged that the applicant and three others came to the business place of respondent no.2 on 20.04.2018 at about 7.00 p.m. for the same. Respondent no.2 refused to pay them that amount. Respondent no.2 had, however, paid Rs.10,000/- to one Mohd. Abdul with a promise to make ::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 19:09:06 ::: 5 cr.appln.3099-18 arrangement for the remaining amount. Learned Counsel for the applicant, in support of his submissions, relied on the judgments in the cases of Lovely Salhotra and anr. Vs. State NCT of Delhi and anr., 2017 DGLS SC 653 and State of Haryana and ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and ors., AIR 1992 SC 604. Learned Counsel, ultimately, urged for quashment of the FIR and investigation undertaken pursuant thereto.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State and learned Counsel representing respondent no.2 submitted in one voice that the allegations in the FIR undoubtedly make out the offence against the applicant. The FIR, therefore, could not be quashed.
6. The allegations in the FIR, in short, are that the applicant and three others went to the business place of respondent no.2 on 20.04.2018 by 07.00 p.m. They demanded Rs.10,00,000/- from respondent no.2. They also told him that if the ::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 19:09:06 ::: 6 cr.appln.3099-18 demand was not fulfilled, the matter would be published in a Daily. One of the three accompanying the applicant was Reporter of 'Nanded Today'. Respondent no.2 expressed his inability to pay Rs.10,00,000/-. They, therefore, scaled down the demand to Rs.5,00,000/- and gave respondent no.2 time of one day to meet with the demand. They, however, asked him to pay them Rs.50,000/- immediately. Respondent no.2 paid Rs.10,000/-. It was nothing but the extortion.
7. In the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court enlisted the categories of cases, wherein, High Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, may interfere in the proceedings relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. We are conscious of the observations made in the case of Bhajan Lal (Supra).
::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 19:09:06 :::
7 cr.appln.3099-18
8. To find out, whether the FIR impugned in this application is liable to be quashed, we have to look into the averments and allegations made therein. With a view to avoid repetition of the facts, suffice it to say that there are allegations to suggest that the applicant and three others had been to the business place of respondent no.2 on 20.04.2018 at 07.00 p.m. They first made a demand for Rs.10,00,000/-. Then the demand was scaled down to Rs.5,00,000/- to be met with within 24 hours. Then they alleged to have asked respondent no.2 to immediately pay them Rs.50,000/-. Respondent no.2, however, paid Rs.10,000/-. The demand was made since the sealed mineral water bottle manufactured/bottled by respondent no.2 contained a dead insect. The demand was made as a consideration for not going public with the said matter. Admittedly, the applicant had bought two boxes of sealed bottles containing mineral water manufactured/bottled by respondent no.2. One of the bottles contained dead ::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 19:09:06 ::: 8 cr.appln.3099-18 insect. True, the applicant had approached the Food and Drugs Administration with a complaint about the same. He got the mineral water tested from the Public Analyst. The report of the Analyst confirmed the water to have contained a dead insect. There is also on record a copy of the complaint/proceedings initiated by the applicant before the District Consumer Forum. However, all these events are post registration of the FIR. Admittedly, the relations between the applicant and respondent no.2 became strained on the said account. The applicant may, therefore, contend that the FIR has been filed with false and frivolous allegations. The fact, however, remains that the allegations in the FIR, prima facie, make out offence under Section 384 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant herein. This Court cannot go into the disputed questions of facts. What has been contended by the applicant is a matter of his defence to be appreciated by the Trial Court. ::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 19:09:06 :::
9 cr.appln.3099-18
9. In view of the above, we are not inclined to allow the application. In the result, the application fails and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
10. The observations made in this judgment are prima facie in nature and confined to the adjudication of present application only.
[R.G. AVACHAT, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]
kbp
::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 19:09:06 :::