The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) quashed and set aside a charge-sheet filed under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), holding that the essential ingredient of disturbance to public peace, as required under Section 159 IPC (definition of affray), was absent from the prosecution’s material.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil L. Pansare and Justice M.M. Nerlikar observed that while two conditions under Section 159 IPC (i) involvement of more than two persons, and (ii) fighting in a public place were satisfied, the third element, i.e., that the act must cause actual disturbance to public peace, was not established.
The case arose from an incident at K.T.S. Hospital, Gondia, where the applicants and others allegedly engaged in a physical altercation during a medical examination. The FIR was registered under Section 160 IPC for committing affray, and a charge-sheet was subsequently filed. The applicants moved to quash the proceedings on the ground that, even assuming all allegations in the FIR as true, no offence under Section 160 IPC was made out.
The Court relied on the unreported decision in Nadeem Ajij Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, which involved similar facts, and on the precedent in Mahant Kaushalya Das v. State of Madras, AIR 1966 SC 22, where it was held that mere public inconvenience does not constitute affray. Additionally, the Court referred to the landmark judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, reiterating that when the allegations in the FIR do not prima facie disclose the commission of an offence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
The State argued that the fight was contained due to intervention by hospital staff and that a trial should be conducted based on the charge-sheet. However, the Court found that the material on record failed to show any disturbance of public tranquility, and thus, Section 159 IPC was not attracted.
Holding that the applicants’ conduct did not constitute affray under Section 160 IPC, the Court allowed the criminal application, and quashed the charge-sheet and proceedings. No order as to costs was passed.
Appearances:
Mr. Aniket N. Rangari, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. A.R. Chutke, A.P.P. for Non-Applicant No.1/State.
None for Non-Applicant No.2