Bombay High Court
Prajesh Prakash Patel vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 11 June, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, N. J. Jamadar
Sherla V.
1_apl.412.2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.412 OF 2019
Prajesh Prakash Patel
aged 31 years, adult,
residing at 303, B Wing
... Applicant
Versoville Co-oprative Housing Society Ltd.,
N. Datta Marg, Andheri (W),
Mumbai 400 053
Vs.
1. State of Maharashtra
(D.N. Nagar Police Station)
2. Krupa Deepak Thakkar ... Respondents
age 28 years, Adult,
residing at 305B, Vikki Apartment,
P.Balu Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400 025
Ms.Sonali Kochar for the Applicant
Mr.Deepak Thakare, Public Prosecutor with Ms.A.S. Pai, APP, for
Respondent - State
Ms.Nishtha Malik for Respondent No.2
Ms.Krupa Sarup, Respondent No.2 - present through V.C.
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE &
N.J. JAMADAR, JJ.
DATED: JUNE 11, 2021
Page 1 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2021 21:18:40 :::
1_apl.412.2019.doc
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER N.J. JAMADAR, J.):
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent
of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties heard finally.
2. The applicant, who is being prosecuted for the offences
punishable under sections 354 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short, "Penal Code"), has preferred this Criminal
Application to quash the prosecution being C.C. No.2086/PW of
2015, arising out C.R. No.330 of 2014, lodged by Ms.Krupa
Deepak Thakkar, respondent No.2 herein.
3. The applicant asserts that on the date of occurrence, while
he was waiting at Linking Road, Andheri (West) signal, a car
bearing Registration No.MH-01-AX-8063 came from behind and
gave a dash to his car bearing No.GJ-23-AN-1088. Respondent
No.2 was at the wheel of the said car. An altercation ensued
between the petitioner and respondent No.2. Eventually,
Respondent No.2 lodged a report with D.N. Nagar police station,
bearing C.R. No.330 of 2014, for the offences punishable under
sections 354 and 504 of the Penal Code. The applicant asserts
that the petitioner had neither insulted Respondent No.2 nor
attempted to outrage her modesty as alleged. No offence is prima
Page 2 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2021 21:18:40 :::
1_apl.412.2019.doc
facie made out.
4. Post completion of investigation, chargesheet has been
lodged before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The petitioner preferred
an application for discharge (exhibit 3). The learned Magistrate,
10th Court, Andheri was, however, persuaded to reject the
application. Hence, this application.
5. Respondent No.2 has appeared in response to the notice.
Respondent No.2 has sworn an affidavit to the effect that the FIR
was lodged out of misconception of facts and the petitioner did not
intend to outrage her modesty. In the hindsight, she now realised
that the conduct attributed to the petitioner did not amount to
outraging her modesty.
6. Paragraphs 7 to 9 of the affidavit of the first informant -
Respondent No.2 read as under:
"7) I submit, state and believe that actions and words of
the Petitioner were outburst of anger but not with the
intention to outrage my modesty. I had felt emotionally
disturbed when the incident had occurred but in hindsight, I
realize that strictly speaking it does not amount to outraging
my modesty. After receiving copy of this application, the
Petitioner and I have had an amicable non-monetary
settlement and having communicated our minds to each
other there are no further grudges amongst us.
Page 3 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2021 21:18:40 :::
1_apl.412.2019.doc
8) I say that I am giving a No objection to the present
petition out of my free will and consent as I have no desire to
pursue the Complaint any further. I realize that there could
have been a miscommunication or misunderstanding while
making the said Complaint.
9) In view of the above, I state that I have no objection if
the aforesaid Original Complainant in C.R. No.330 of 2014
before the D.N. Nagar P.S. is quashed and set aside by this
Hon'ble Court."
7. Respondent No.2 is present through video conference. We
have interacted with her. Respondent No.2 admits the correctness
of the assertions in the affidavit. She claims that she has filed the
affidavit on her own volition and there is no duress. Respondent
No.2 submits that she does not desire to prosecute the petitioner
any further. She has realised that the incident had occurred at the
spur of the moment in a road rage and the petitioner had no
intention to outrage her modesty.
8. In view of the aforesaid affirmation and the statements
before the Court, we have perused the material on record including
the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to
satisfy ourselves about the justifiability of the prayer of quashing
the prosecution. From the perusal of the allegations in the First
Information Report, it becomes abundantly clear that the vehicular
Page 4 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2021 21:18:40 :::
1_apl.412.2019.doc
accident was the genesis of the occurrence. Respondent No.2
and the petitioner had not known each other from before. On
account of the accident there was an altercation, probably on the
aspect as to who was at fault. The averments in the First
Information Report do not, prima facie, indicate that the petitioner
intended to outrage the modesty of respondent No.2.
9. It is trite that in exercise of the powers under section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the High Court comes to the
conclusion that further continuation of the prosecution would not
serve any fruitful purpose, it would be justified in quashing the
prosecution in order to secure the ends of justice and prevent an
abuse of the process of Court. In the case at hand, on a careful
perusal of the record, we find that the essential elements of the
offences are not prima facie made out. The facts that the vehicular
accident was the genesis of the occurrence and the report came to
be lodged due to misconception of facts and intent of the accused-
applicant, are further fortified by the assertions of the first
informant in the affidavit.
10. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to quash the
proceedings being C.C. No.2086/PW of 2015, though chargesheet
Page 5 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2021 21:18:40 :::
1_apl.412.2019.doc
has been filed and the learned Magistrate was persuaded to reject
the application. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
The Petition is allowed.
The prosecution, being C.C. No.2086/PW of 2015, arising
out of C.R. No.330 of 2014, pending on the file of the
Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court at Andheri stands
quashed.
11. Rule made absolute to the above extent and the Petition
stands disposed off accordingly.
(N.J. JAMADAR, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)
