N.J.JAMADAR,J. - (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred to quash and set aside the prosecution, being PW/361/2020, arising out FIR No.282/2020, dated 9th May, 2020, registered with L.T. Marg Police Station, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 269, 307, 324, 332, 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( "the Penal Code "), Section 27 read with Section 4 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 135 read with Section 37(1) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
(2.) The petition arises in the backdrop of the following facts: "(a) On 8th May, 2020, Jitendra Kadam (hereinafter referred to as, "the first informant "), then posted as the Police Inspector at Marine Drive Police Station, was on patrolling duty. Near Mafatlal Bath junction, the petitioner was found approaching unmasked. The petitioner was armed with a chopper. The petitioner proceeded towards Marine Drive Railway Station. When the first informant attempted to intercept the petitioner, the latter allegedly ran away amidst threats that whoever came forward to catch him, would be assaulted. The police party chased him. The first informant succeeded in accosting him near Appanag Building on M.K. Road. The petitioner allegedly aimed a blow by means of chopper on the head of the first informant amidst threat that if first informant tried to catch him, he would be killed. The first informant took an evasive action and the blow fell on his left shoulder. When Mr. Shelke, Police Sub-Inspector attempted to catch him, the petitioner inflicted a blow by means of chopper on the right hand of Mr. Shelke. Eventually, the petitioner was overpowered by police and disarmed. The first informant thus lodged report. (b) Investigation commenced. Accused came to be arrested. Post completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( "the Code ") came to be lodged against the petitioner. The jurisdictional Magistrate committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions, Greater Bombay. (c) The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking quashment of prosecution, arising out of FIR No.282/2020 on the ground that the petitioner had no mens rea at the time of the commission of the alleged offences. If the acts attributed to the petitioner are considered in the light of the circumstances which preceded, attended and succeeded the said occurrence, according to the petitioner, it becomes abundantly clear that on account of the unsoundness of mind the petitioner was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The petitioner thus cannot be made to undergo the rigours of the trial when the material on record squarely brings the acts and conduct of the petitioner within the exception of insanity envisaged by Section 84 of the Penal Code."
(3.) We have heard Mr. Merchant, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Shinde, the learned APP for the State, at some length. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, we have perused the material on record, especially, the report under Section173 of the Code and its accompaniments.;