Adeetya Mohta S/O Satish Mohta vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12020 Bom

                                              1                                20-apl-250-22j.odt



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

               CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 250 OF 2022

Adeetya Mohta S/o. Satish Mohta,
Aged about 42 years, Occ. Actor, Business,
Jewellary Designer, Vastu Consultant,
R/o. 742, Additya House, Nelson Square,
Chhindwara Road, Nagpur-440013
Cell No. 7718900523                                                        . . . APPLICANT

                    // V E R S U S //

1. The State of Maharashtra through
   the Police Station Officer,
   Sadar Police Station, Civil Lines,
   Nagpur-440014.

2. Muthulaxmi Adeetya Mohta
   (Real name Muthulaxmi Kandaswamy
    Pandian)
    Aged about 42 years, Occ. Jobless,
    R/o. Flat No. 201, G-Wing, Spring Grove
    Uno, Lokhandwala Township,
    Kandivali East Mumbai-400101.
    Cell No. 7058095456/8451080118.                              . . . NON-APPLICANTS

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A. N. Rangari, Advocate for applicant.
Shri S. S. Doifode, APP for applicant no. 1/State.
Shri S. S. Sohni, Advocate for non-applicant no. 2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CORAM :-         SUNIL B. SHUKRE &
                                  M. W. CHANDWANI, JJ.

                 DATED :-         23.11.2022

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: SUNIL B. SHUKRE):-

1.               Heard.
                                    2                       20-apl-250-22j.odt

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the parties.

3. According to the applicant, the allegations made in the

First Information Report (FIR) are false and they do not make out

prima facie case against the applicant. Learned counsel for the

applicant submits that while in the FIR, the complainant has not stated

anything about presence of any other persons or witnesses, the

Investigating Officer has recorded statements of two persons namely

Anil Sheshman Yadav and Sheikh Wasim Sheikh Payare Sahab, who

have stated that they had seen the incident taking place in which some

obscene abuses were hurled by the applicant against the complainant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this inconsistency itself

would show that the complainant has filed a false FIR against the

applicant. He also submits that the Trial Court has framed the Charge

for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code

(IPC) against the applicant but, the details of the Charge stated in the

article of Charge are incorrect in the sense that the applicant never did

anything so as to cause alarm to kill the complainant. He submits that

in fact there is no allegations whatsoever made by the complainant

that the applicant had threatened to kill her.

3 20-apl-250-22j.odt

4. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for non-

applicant no. 2 both submit that the allegations made in the FIR, taken

at their face value, do constitute prima facie case against the applicant

and therefore, this is not a fit case for interference with the FIR or

Charge-sheet. They also submit that if there is incorrect narration of

the some facts in the article of Charge, the applicant has the liberty to

bring on record the correct facts by way of his defense and therefore,

no prejudice would be caused to him, rather stating incorrect facts in

the article of Charge can be a factor which would go in favour of the

applicant himself at the trial.

5. On going through the FIR and also statement of two eye-

witnesses and article of Charge, we find that there is no substance in

the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant and there is

great merit in the submissions of learned APP and learned counsel for

non-applicant no. 2.

6. The allegations made in the FIR are very specific and they

indicate that on 03.07.2021 at about 8.00 a.m., when the complainant/

non-applicant no. 2 was standing on road near S. K. Hotel, Nelson

Square, Nagpur waiting for 'Ola Cab' to arrive, the applicant- her

estranged husband, came there and in obscene words hurled abuses at

her. The expletives given by the applicant are specifically reproduced 4 20-apl-250-22j.odt

in the FIR and in our considered opinion these abuses do constitute

strong prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 294 of

the IPC against the applicant. These expletives are in words "rq ukxiwj es

D;q ?kqe jgh gks A vc ns[k] eS rsjk D;k gky djrk gq A eS rsjh xkaM ekj nqaxk" and they

have been hurled at the complainant in a public place, right on public

road where the complainant was standing at the time of the incident.

When such abuses are given on a public road and in a public place, it

may be that the victim of crime would become unmindful of the

presence of other persons around him/her.

7. Here in this case, the victim of the crime i.e. non-applicant

no. 2 did not know any person by name or any kind of acquaintance

and therefore, it is quite natural on her part to have not stated

anything about the persons who may have witnessed the incident. As

stated earlier, the place of incident being a public road, possibly there

could be several strangers present in the vicinity, but the complainant

may not have been aware of their presence, which it is quite natural.

There can also be a possibility of the complainant being aware of them,

but not being sure about their actually witnessing the incident and that

is the reason why the complainant may not have named them in the

FIR. That apart, a victim of crime would generally take names of

witnesses in his/her statement whom he/she knows and about whom 5 20-apl-250-22j.odt

he/she is certain about witnessing the incident. Therefore, nothing

suspicious could be seen in Police finding out, during the course of the

investigation, two eye-witnesses and the complainant/non-applicant

no. 2 not noticing them as being present at the time of the incident.

Therefore, we find that there is existence of strong prima facie case

against the applicant for an offence punishable under Section 294 of

the IPC with which now he is being prosecuted.

8. As regards the incorrect narration of some facts in the

Charge for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC, we are

of the view that the applicant is at liberty to point out the same during

the Trial by way of his defense and benefit of which may perhaps go to

the applicant.

9. For the reasons stated above, we are not inclined to allow

this application. The application stands dismissed.

10. The other pending applications, if any, are disposed of in

the above terms.

11. The copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court. Digitally signed by JAISWAL JAISWAL RAJNESH RAJNESH RAMESH RAMESH Date:

2022.11.24 10:28:09 +0530 (M. W. CHANDWANI, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.) RR Jaiswal