Bombay High Court
MURTUZA Z ENGINEERversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that the evidence establishes prima facie criminal force, so the charge under Section 353 read with Section 34 IPC is valid.
Summary
Murtuza Z Engineer challenged the framing of charges under Section 353 read with Section 34 of the IPC for allegedly using criminal force against MHADA officers during an eviction on 19 September 2019. The applicant argued that the incident was merely a scuffle, that no criminal force was used, and that the charge sheet lacked the notice required under Section 95(A) of the MHADA Act, rendering the charge untenable. The court examined the statements of the first informant and multiple witnesses, finding that the applicant actively resisted the eviction and used force without consent, satisfying the definition of criminal force under Section 350 IPC. It held that the absence of the notice in the charge sheet does not defeat the prosecution’s case at this stage. Consequently, the revision application seeking quashing of the charge was rejected, and the charge stands.
Issues considered
- Whether the conduct of the applicant amounts to "criminal force" under Section 350 of the IPC.
- Whether the non‑annexation of the notice under Section 95(A) of the MHADA Act warrants quashing of the charge under Section 353 IPC.
- Whether there is sufficient material on record to justify framing of charge under Section 353 read with Section 34 IPC.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 350, 353
- Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority Act — s. 95(A)
Subjects
- criminal force
- IPC 353
- eviction
- MHADA
- charge framing
- revision application
Judgment
6-REVN-151-2025 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 151 OF 2025
Murtuza Z Engineer ...Applicant/s
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent/s
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Raj K. Awasthi a/w. Ms. Bushra Sayed and Mr. Yash Mishra i/b.
Pragya Mishra, Advocate for Applicant.
Digitally
SONALI
signed by
SONALI
SATISH
Ms. Ranjana D. Humane, APP for Respondent-State.
SATISH KILAJE
Date:
KILAJE 2026.10.01
Retired PI- Gadhve, J.J.Marg Police Station present.
18:23:38
+0530
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. The challenge in this Revision Application is to the order passed
by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, whereby charge has been
framed against the applicant under Section 353 read with Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”).
2. It is prosecution case that on 19.09.2019, when first informant
and the officers of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority
(for short, “MHADA”) went to the shop of applicant and co-accused to
vacate the shop in pursuance of a notice under Section 95[A] of the
MHADA Act, the applicant and co-accused resisted the said action and
used criminal force against the officers of MHADA.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that
Page 1 of 5
6-REVN-151-2025 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. From the statement of
witnesses, it is not revealed that the applicant used criminal force or
assaulted the first informant or officers of MHADA. Learned counsel
further submitted that, as per the statement of witnesses, it is mentioned
that applicant and co-accused engaged in a scuffle. However, it does not
mean that the applicant used criminal force against the raiding party or the
members of the MHADA team. Learned counsel further submitted that no
notice under Section 95(A) of the MHADA Act was annexed with the
chargesheet to establish that the officers were discharging official duty.
However, these facts are not considered by the learned Judge and has
framed the charge, which are erroneous and requested to allow the
application. He relied on K. Dhananjay vs. Cabinet Secretary & Ors. [SLP
(CRL) No. 5905 of 2022] and Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and
Anr. [(1979) 3 SCC 4].
4. It is contention of learned APP that the applicant has not
disputed the incident happened in his shop. The applicant is stating that a
scuffle with the members of the MHADA party would not amount to
criminal force or assault. However, the statement of the witnesses and FIR
specifically state that the applicant and co-accused protested against the
action of MHADA officers and their team and they used criminal force
against the MHADA officers. Not-annexation of the notice under Section
Page 2 of 5
6-REVN-151-2025 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
95(A) of MHADA Act cannot dilute the prosecution’s case. The same can
be produced and proved in evidence. There is prima facie case against the
applicant and requested to reject the application.
5. Heard rival submissions. Perused documents produced on
record. The allegations against the applicants are that he and co-accused
opposed the action of MHADA to vacate their shops and used criminal
force against the MHADA officers. Section 353 of IPC reads as under:
“353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his
duty.—Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public
servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to
prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public
servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by
such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
Admittedly, first informant, and MHADA officials and team
workers were discharging their official duties at the time of incident. It is
contention of learned counsel for the applicant that there was a scuffle
between the applicant and MHADA officials and the same cannot be
considered as criminal force. The criminal force is defined as under:
“350. Criminal force.—
Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that
person’s consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or
intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be
likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or
annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to
use criminal force to that other.”
In the present case, from the statement of Chudaman Bagul,
Page 3 of 5
6-REVN-151-2025 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
first informant and an officer of MHADA, it appears that the applicant and
co-accused resisted the eviction process and used criminal force against the
officials of the MHADA and workers, when they had gone to the shop to
vacate the same as per the notice under Section 95(A) of MHADA Act. The
statement of witnesses Rajendra Jain, Hashmat Khan, Hafiz Khan, Qayyum
Abdul Qadir Khan and Bhimrao Kale, support the statement of first
informant. Thus, there is evidence on record showing the presence and
participation of the applicant in the incident and his active resistance to
the eviction process. The allegations that the applicant, along with the co-
accused, pushed and resisted the MHADA officials and workers who had
entered the shop while carrying out the eviction process, prima facie
constitute the use of force without their consent and with the requisite
intention or knowledge as contemplated under Section 350 of the IPC. The
acts attributed to the applicant, therefore, prima facie amount to criminal
force. The applicant is seeking quashing of framing of charge. It is settled
law that where there is no material against an accused, he would be
entitled to discharge and a charge cannot be framed against him. However,
in the present case, there is sufficient evidence on record showing
involvement and participation of the applicant in the alleged incident.
6. As regards the contention that notice under Section 95(A) of
the MHADA has not been annexed to the chargesheet, the same cannot be
Page 4 of 5
6-REVN-151-2025 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
a ground to quash the charge at this stage.
7. I have gone through the case law cited by the learned counsel
for the applicant, the facts of cited case and present case are different,
hence not applicable and I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The Revision Application is rejected.
(ii) All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 5 of 5
Checking your session…