Bombay High Court
Navnath Digamber Babar vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 September, 2024
Author: Neela Gokhale
Bench: A. S. Gadkari, Neela Gokhale
2024:BHC-AS:36327-DB
Gitalaxmi apl-701-2022-J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 701 OF 2022
Navnath Digamber Babar,
Aged about 37 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. Room No. 1362, Chawl No. 20,
Karmaveer Dadasaheb Gaikwad Nagar,
Chembur, Mumbai - 400 089. .....Applicant
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through PSI Kurla Police Station,
Kurla, Mumbai, through Govt. Pleader,
High Court Bombay.
2. Anita Vijay Jawle,
Aged about 30 years, Occ.:Household,
R/o. Room No. 1359, Chawl No. 20,
Karmaveer Dadasaheb Gaikwad Nagar,
Chembur, Mumbai - 400 089. .....Respondents
Mr. B. S. Nayak for the Applicant.
Mr. Sukant A. Karmakar, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.
Ms. Farhana Shah for Respondent No. 2.
CORAM :A. S. GADKARI AND
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 4th SEPTEMBER 2024.
PRONOUNCED ON : 10th SEPTEMBER 2024.
JUDGMENT (Per Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.) :
-
1) The Applicant seeks quashing of criminal proceedings bearing
C.C. No. 1287/PW/2022 pending before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, 51st Court, Kurla, Mumbai, arising out of F.I.R. No. 215 of 2022
Gitalaxmi apl-701-2022-J.doc
dated 4th December 2021 registered with the Deonar Police Station,
Mumbai for the offense punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal
Code (I.P.C.).
2) The facts of the case in brief are as under:
2.1) The Applicant and the Respondent No. 2 are neighbours.
There is already C.R. No. 755 of 2021 registered by the Applicant against
the Respondent No. 2 alleging that the Respondent No. 2 assaulted his wife.
The crime was registered for offenses punishable under Section 452, 323,
504 & 427 read with 34 of I.P.C. on 4th December 2021. There are also two
Non-Cognizable Complaints registered against the Respondent No. 2 by the
Applicant.
2.2) It is the case of prosecution in the present matter that, when
Respondent No. 2 along with her mother-in-law and sister-in-law had gone
to attend the Court at Kurla and while she was standing in the premises of
Court, the Applicant came near her and touched her chest inappropriately.
She shared the said incident with her husband and thereafter lodged the
present F.I.R.
3) By an Order dated 10th October 2023, the Petition was
admitted and further proceedings in the trial Court were stayed.
4) Mr. B. S. Nayak, learned counsel appears for the Applicant and
Ms. Farhana Shah, learned counsel appears for the Respondent No. 2. Mr.
S. A. Karmakar, learned A.P.P. represents the State.
Gitalaxmi apl-701-2022-J.doc
4.1) Mr. Nayak contended that, the present F.I.R. is a counterblast to
the earlier F.I.R. filed by his wife against the Respondent No. 2 to implicate
the Applicant in a false case. He argues that, it is improbable that such
incident as alleged by the Respondent No. 2 would take place in an open
public place and that too, in Court premises in presence of public and police
personnel. Thus he submits that, the F.I.R. is an abuse of the process of law.
In any case it is vague and omnibus. No cognizable offense can be averred
from the F.I.R. He thus urges us to quash the criminal proceedings.
5) Ms. Shah, learned counsel reiterates the contents of F.I.R. and
submits that, the chargesheet has been filed since the investigation by the
Police has brought home guilt to the Applicant. She also urged that, she
was ready and willing for a settlement so as to have cordial relations with
the neighbours i.e. the Applicant. The Applicant however is not ready to
settle the matter. This has been recorded in the admission Order passed by
this Court. Hence she urges us to dismiss the Application.
6) Mr. Karmakar, learned A.P.P. supports the case of Respondent
No. 2 and reiterates the contents of chargesheet.
7) We have heard the counsels of both the parties and perused the
documents with their assistance.
8) A plain but careful reading of the F.I.R. and the chargesheet
reveals a total absence of material to demonstrate commission of the
offense as alleged by the Respondent No. 2. There is no other evidence on
Gitalaxmi apl-701-2022-J.doc
record save and except the bare statement of the Respondent No. 2. The
statements of other witnesses narrating the occurrence are purely based on
hearsay. It is highly improbable for the Applicant to commit such an act as
alleged in broad day light, in Court premises in the presence of public and
Police personnel. Moreover the Respondent No. 2 alleged that, she was
standing with her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. Neither of them have
recorded a statement as having witnessed the incident. We have no
hesitation in holding that, the F.I.R. and the criminal proceedings impugned
herein are nothing but a counterblast to the case filed by the Applicant's
wife against the Respondent No. 2. There is nothing to indicate the
commission of a cognizable offense.
9) The Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Rajagopal Vs. Devi
Polymers Private Limited1, has observed:
"13. We find that the allegations that the appellant is guilty of
an offense under the aforesaid section are inherently improbable
and there is no sufficient ground of proceedings against the
accused. The proceedings have been initiated against the
appellant as a part of an ongoing dispute between the parties and
seem to be due to a private and personal grudge. "
10) In the landmark decision of the Apex Court in the case of State
of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others 2, the following categories
are culled out as guidelines in cases where the power under Section 482 of
1. (2016)6 SCC 310.
2. 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335.
Gitalaxmi apl-701-2022-J.doc
the Criminal Procedure Code should be exercised:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the
principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions
relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which
we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may
not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid
formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any
offense or make out a case against the accused.
(2)...
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R.
or the complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offense and make
out a case against the accused.
(4)...
(5) Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
Gitalaxmi apl-701-2022-J.doc
(6)...
(7)..."
10.1) We find that the present case clearly falls under the categories
1, 3 & 5 of paragraph no. 102 of the aforesaid decision.
11) In view of the above, we are of the view that, the allegation
against the Applicant is wholly improbable and deserves to be quashed.
Accordingly the criminal proceedings bearing C.C. No. 1287/PW/2022
pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 51 st Court, Kurla,
Mumbai, arising out of F.I.R. No. 215 of 2022 dated 4 th December 2021
registered with the Deonar Police Station, Mumbai are quashed and set
aside.
11.1) The Application is allowed. Rule is accordingly made absolute
in terms of prayer clause (a).
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (A. S. GADKARI, J.)
GITALAXMI KRISHNA
KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR
KOTAWADEKAR Date:
2024.09.10
13:49:20 +0530
