Bombay High Court
ALKA NAVNATH RATHOD AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- S G CHAPALGAONKAR
Holding
The Court held that the existence of material evidence of assault on police officers precludes quashment of the FIR under its inherent powers.
Summary
The applicants, Alka Navnath Rathod and others, filed a criminal application seeking the quashment of FIR No.98/2025 registered on 13 March 2025 for alleged offences under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Maharashtra Police Act. The FIR was based on information from a Sub‑Inspector that the accused were dealing in illicit liquor, leading to a raid during which the accused allegedly resisted, abused, and assaulted the police with stones, causing injuries to four officers. The applicants contended that the FIR was false and politically motivated, while the State presented investigation papers and medical reports confirming the officers’ injuries. The Court examined whether there was a prima facie case sufficient to warrant continuation of the investigation and whether the inherent powers could be invoked to quash the FIR. Finding material evidence of the alleged assault and injuries, the Court held that the FIR was not frivolous and thus could not be set aside, rejecting the application.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR can be quashed on the ground of being false and politically motivated.
- Whether the Court’s inherent powers can be exercised to interfere with a FIR where a prima facie case exists.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 121(1), 132, 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2), 351(3), 352
- Maharashtra Police Act — s. 135
Subjects
- FIR quashment
- inherent powers of court
- criminal procedure
- illicit liquor
- assault on police officers
- political motivation
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:4404-DB
(1) 912-appln-2601-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2601 OF 2025
ALKA NAVNATH RATHOD AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Ms. Neha Udawant h/f Mr. Sudarshan J. Salunke, Advocate for
Applicants.
Mr. S. A. Gaikwad, APP for Respondents-State.
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 23rd JANUARY, 2026.
P.C.:-
1. The applicants seek quashment of FIR dated 13.03.2025 in
Crime No.98/2025 registered with Partur Police Station, District
Jalna for offences punishable under Sections 109, 132, 121(1), 352,
351(2), 351(3), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3) of Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Section 135 of Maharashtra Police Act.
2. Perusal of FIR would show that investigation was set in
motion on the basis of information given by respondent no.2. In
nutshell, it is alleged that on 13.03.2025 informant, who is serving
as Sub Inspector, State Excise received information that accused
persons are illegally dealing with illicit liquor. In pursuance to
said information, informant and other officers raided premises of
accused and they found that illicit liquor was stored by accused
persons. It is further alleged that accused resisted raiding party
from proceeding further in pursuance to investigation and abused
officers in filthy language. Thereafter, they assaulted officers by
(2) 912-appln-2601-2025.odt
pelting stones. The officers, who participated in raiding party
suffered injuries. In light of aforesaid information, Crime
No.98/2025 has been registered with Partur Police Station, Dist.
Jalna.
3. The learned Advocate appearing for applicants submits that
applicants have been victimized by filing false complaint. They
have been falsely arraigned as accused because of political reasons.
4. Per contra, Mr. Gaikwad, learned APP appearing for
respondent/State brought to notice of this Court papers of
investigation, which shows that four officers who participated in
raid suffered injuries. The medical report in respect of such
injuries is made part of investigation papers.
5. In light of aforesaid facts, prima facie, there is material to
permit investigation and trial. Hence, no case is made out to cause
interference under inherent powers of this Court.
6. In result, Criminal Application stands rejected.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Devendra/January-2026
Checking your session…