Shyamrao son of Vithoba Pillare vs State of Maharashtra

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

finally by consent.

The petitioner has been prosecuted for the offences

punishable under Sections 354B, 294, 509, 506, Part-II and 353 of

the Indian Penal Code . The charge for all these offences was also

framed against the petitioner. The petitioner, however, was not

satisfied with the framing of the charge under the heads of offences

punishable under Sections 353 and 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal

Code. Therefore, he preferred criminal revision application being

Criminal Revision No. 14 of 2017 before the Court of Additional

Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli. Learned Additional Additional Sessions

Judge dismissed the revision application holding that framing of

charge was proper, it being supported by prima facie material

available on record. Aggrieved by the order of learned Additional

Sessions Judge passed on 25th October 2017, the petitioner is before

this Court in the present writ petition.

I would have accepted the contentions of learned

counsel for the petitioner had there been no allegations made

against the petitioner in the oral report (first information report)

dated 27.4.2016 filed against him by the complainant. A bare

perusal of this report discloses that prima facie the offences

punishable under Sections 353 and 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal

Code are attracted. The relevant allegations are to the effect that

there was an assault as well as use of criminal force by the petitioner

to the complainant at the time when the complainant, admittedly a

public servant, was in the midst of performing her duty as a public

servant and that it was said to her that she would not be allowed to

leave the office alive. These allegations, prima facie, answer the

essential ingredients of Sections 353 and 506, Part-II of the Indian

Penal Code and, therefore, no error in framing of the charge for

these offences could be found in the order passed by learned

Magistrate. Similarly, the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge

can also not be faulted with for the very reason.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it

is necessary for an offence punishable under Section 353 of the

Indian Penal Code to constitute that some intention is shown to

prevent or deter a public servant from discharging his duty. I do not

think that in the absence of such an intention, no offence punishable

under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code can be made out. The

reason being that the offence under this section can be constituted if

any one of the acts mentioned in this section is committed and one

such act is of use of criminal force to or making assault upon the

public servant in the execution of his duty as a public servant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that for

an offence punishable under Section 506, Part-II of the Indian Penal

Code, causing of the alarm in the mind of a person against whom

the offence is alleged to have been committed, is necessary and

mere utterance of threat is not enough. In the present case, there is

given a death threat in specific words and the question whether such

death threat was real or hollow or was not of such a nature as to

cause any alarm in the mind of the complainant, would have to be

decided upon merits of the case when a detailed evidence is

available. At the stage of framing of charge, what is required to be

seen is prima facie worth of the material gathered during the course

of investigation and whether such material, without adding

anything to it or subtracting from it, constitutes the offence or

offences alleged against the petitioner.

For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no

error in the impugned order could be found. Petition deserves to be

dismissed.

In the result, petition stands dismissed. Rule is

discharged.