Sanjay Pandurang Singhan vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 8826 Bom

Bombay High Court

Sanjay Pandurang Singhan vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 16 December, 2025

Author: N.J.Jamadar

Bench: N.J.Jamadar

2025:BHC-AS:55414-DB

                                                                               apl 568 of 2024.doc

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                             CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.568 OF 2024

            Sanjay Pandurang Singhan                           ...      Applicant
                 versus
            The State of Maharashtra and Anr.                  ...        Respondents

            Mr. Viral Rathod with Ms. Shivani Shinde, for Applicant.
            Mrs. R.S.Tendulkar, APP for State.
            Mr. Sahil Choudhari, for Respondent No.2.
            Mr. Devidas Pokale, Kasturba Marg Police Station present.

                               CORAM:       N.J.JAMADAR, J.

                               RESERVED ON               : 27 NOVEMBER 2025
                               PRONOUNCED ON             : 16 DECEMBER 2025

            JUDGMENT :

1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 ('the Code'), the Applicant seeks quashing of the Criminal

Proceedings being CC No.1171/PW/2024, arising out of C.R.No.213 of 2024

registered at Kasturba Marg Police Station, and the order of cognizance dated

5 March 2025 passed by the learned Magistrate, 68 th Court, Borivali, Mumbai,

thereby issuing the process against the Applicant for an offence punishable

under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the Penal Code').

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts leading to this

application can be stated as under :

2.1 The Applicant is a social worker and husband of a former Corporator

affiliated to a police party. The first informant (R2) was also holding the office

apl 568 of 2024.doc

of the Deputy Chief of a local unit of the said political party. On 12 March

2023, a meeting of the workers of the said local unit was organized at Garden

Hall, Near Phulpakharu Ground, Devipada, Borivali. After the meeting was

over, the first informant (R2) was discussing the issues with Mrs. Madhuri

Khanvilkar, a Coordinator of the local Unit of the said political party, in the

presence of other workers. The first informant made a grievance that some

office-bearers of the political party were calling the ladies for meetings, though

their presence was not required, and, thereby sabotaging the meeting

convened for the redevelopment of Rehman Chawl and Ganesh Compound

SRA projects.

2.2 The first informant alleged, the applicant, whom she had known from

before, overheard the said conversation between the first informant and Mrs.

Khanvilkar, and charged on the person of the first informant, proclaimed that

he had not taken any bribe from anybody and pushed the first informant back

by touching her chest. The applicant allegedly exhorted that the first

informant was required to be taught a lesson. The first informant felt that her

modesty was outraged. Hence, the first informant lodged a report leading to

the registration of C.R.No.213 of 2024 at Kasturba Marg Police Station.

2.3 Post completion of investigation, during the course of which the

Investigation Officer recorded statements of as many as 59 witnesses, who

were allegedly present in the said meeting, chargesheet came to be lodged

apl 568 of 2024.doc

against the applicant for an offence punishable under Section 354 of the

Penal Code.

3. The Applicant has preferred this application asserting, inter alia, that

the first informant had lodged a report with a view to wreck vengeance. The

continuation of the prosecution constitutes abuse of the process of the Court

as in the initial non-cognizable report lodged by the first informant, there was

no whisper about the alleged act of outraging the modesty of the first

informant (R2), attributed to the applicant. As a non-cognizable case for the

offences punishable under Sections 506, 323 of the Penal Code was

registered on 12 March 2024, the IO could not have registered FIR and

proceeded with the investigation without obtaining the orders of the

Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Code, 1973. The initiation of the

prosecution was clearly malafide, and, thus, resultant proceeding deserves to

be quashed and set aside.

4. I have heard Mr. Rathod, learned Counsel for the Applicant, Mrs.

Tendulkar, learned APP for the State, and Mr. Sahil Choudhary, learned

Counsel for the first informant (R2), at some length. With the assistance of

the learned Counsel for the parties, I have also perused the report under

Section 173 of the Code and the documents annexed thereto, including the

statements of the first informant and the witnesses.

5. Mr. Rathod, learned Counsel for the Applicant, would urge that, the

apl 568 of 2024.doc

prosecution of the Applicant is a classic case of abuse of the process of

Court. Laying emphasis on the fact that, in the NC complaint, which was

lodged almost instantaneously, there was no reference at all to the alleged

acts of outraging the modesty of the first informant, it was urged that, once a

NC complaint, on the basis of the statement made by the first informant (R2)

before the Police was registered, if the Police intended to further investigate

into the matter, permission of the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the

Code, 1973, was indispensable. The IO could not have circumvented the

mandatory procedure by registering the FIR on the next day on the basis of

motivated and trumpped up allegations. To lend support to this submission,

Mr. Rathod placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the

case of Asif Khan Pathan V/s. State through PP and Ors.1.

6. As a second limb of the submission, Mr. Rathod would urge that, even if

the report filed by the IO under Section 173 of the Code and the documents

annexed with it, is taken at its face value, no offence under Section 354 of the

Code, can be said to have been made out, as many as 58 out of 59 witnesses

have completely disowned the prosecution version. Even Mrs. Khanvilkar,

who was stated to be the prime witness, did not support the prosecution

version. Therefore, continuation of the criminal proceeding, which is ex-facie

initiated with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance, would defeat the

1 2023 SCC Online Bom 2217

apl 568 of 2024.doc

ends of justice.

7. Per contra, Mrs. Tendulkar, learned APP for the State, submitted that,

the statement of Mrs. Soni, one of the witnesses examined by the IO, lends

support to the claim of the first informant. Moreover, in her statement

recorded under Section 164 of the Code, before the learned Magistrate, the

first informant has reiterated the allegations against the Applicant. Therefore,

the veracity of the allegations must be left to be determined at the trial, though

no other eye witness has supported the version of the first informant (R2).

8. Mr. Choudhary, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2, supplemented

the submissions of Mrs. Tendulkar. It was submitted that, what the Applicant

wants this Court to do is, to evaluate the veracity of the statements of the

majority of the witnesses, who have not supported the first informant, and the

sole witness, who has supported the first informant's version. At this stage,

the said exercise is legally impermissible, submitted Mr. Choudhary. Since in

her examination under Section 164 of the Code, before the learned

Magistrate, the first informant (R2) has stood by her allegations, the issue

must await adjudication at the trial. Therefore, the application does not

deserve countenance, at this stage.

9. At the outset, it is necessary to note that there is not much controversy

over the circumstances in which the offence was allegedly committed by the

applicant. The first informant was allegedly enraged on account of the

apl 568 of 2024.doc

conduct of the office bearers of the political party including the applicant. The

presence of the applicant, Respondent No.2 and other office bearers,

including Mrs. Khanvilkar, at the time and place of the occurrence, appears

rather incontestable. At the heart of the matter is the events which allegedly

unfolded after the meeting of the political party was over. What the first

informant reported at the first instance, assumes critical salience.

10. On 12 March 2024, under two hours of the alleged occurrence, the first

informant approached Kasturba Marg Police Station and reported that, while

the first informant was relating grievance to Mrs. Khanvilkar, the Applicant

approached her; manhandled and assaulted her and threatened her with dire

consequences.

11. Evidently, the first informant did not report about the assault or use of

criminal force by the applicant with intention or knowledge of outraging her

modesty. It was not reported that the Applicant had pushed the first informant

back by touching her chest. Thus, the Police recorded NC report for the

offences punishable under Sections 506 and 323 of the Penal Code. The

omission to make the allegations in relation to outraging the modesty of the

first informant on the day of occurrence, especially when the matter was

reported to the Police under two hours thereof, cannot be said to be

inconsequential or immaterial. The act attributed to the applicant in the FIR

was such a notorious fact that the first informant could not have missed to

apl 568 of 2024.doc

state the same at the first possible opportunity. The omission to make the

allegations of outraging the modesty in the report lodged immediately after

the occurrence, renders the subsequent act by lodging report susceptible to

attack on the ground that those allegations were creature of after-thought and

malafide.

12. The registration of NC report for the offences punishable under

Sections 506 and 323 of the Penal Code, has legal implications. In view of

the provisions contained in Section 155(2) of the Code, 1973, the IO cannot

enter upon investigation without obtaining the permission from the

jurisdictional Magistrate. The use of the word 'shall' in sub-section (2) of

Section 155 emphasises the negative import that the police officer shall not

investigate the non-cognizable case without obtaining orders from the

Magistrate having power to try such case.

13. A profitable reference in this context can be made to a Division Bench

judgment of this Court in the case of Shoeb Arif Memon and Ors. V/s. The

State of Maharashtra and Anr.2, wherein in somewhat identical fact-

situation, wherein initially non-cognizable case was registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 of the Penal Code, and, after 28

days, the first informant alleged commission of the offence punishable under

Section 354 also, the Division Bench of this Court was persuaded to quash

2 2021 ALL MR (Cri) 1864

apl 568 of 2024.doc

the proceedings opining that the mandate contained in Section 155(2) of the

Code, 1973, was not adhered to. The observations of the Division Bench in

paragraph Nos.12 to 14 are material and, hence, extracted below :

"12. We find it difficult to accept the said submission for the reason that any reasonable person, in the position of the husband of respondent No.2 or respondent No.2 herself, would have given details of the alleged actions of the applicants in the incident that occurred on 13th August, 2020 when such person approached the police for the first time to raise a grievance. Not having done so and then approaching the police after 28 days to allege that the applicant had committed offences punishable under Sections 354, 509, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC demonstrates that respondent No.2 was seeking to give a different colour to the very same incident.

13. It is significant that there is indeed a grudge between the parties for the reason that the applicants have been alleging that husband of respondent No.2, their former employee, had indulged in some misappropriation for which they had sought to confront him. In this backdrop, it becomes clear that the manner in which respondent No.2 chose to approach the police after about 28 days of the incident, when already cross complaints pertaining to non-cognizable offences had been registered by the applicants and her husband against each other, we are of the opinion that there is substance in the contentions raised on behalf of the applicants.

14. Section 155 (2) of the Cr.P.C. provides that a police officer can investigate a non-cognizable case only upon an

apl 568 of 2024.doc

order of Magistrate having power to try such a case or commit such a case for trial, thereby indicating that in absence of such an order, the police officer could not have initiated investigation. In a present case, the said mandate does not appear to have been followed."

14. In the case of Asif Khan Pathan (supra), on which reliance was

placed by Mr. Rathod, another Division Bench, again in somewhat similar

fact-situation, enunciated the law as under :

39. In Tulsidas Gopal Naik vs. State of Goa 3, this Court while dealing with a similar contention and on considering provisions of Section 155 of Cr.P.C., observed in paras 25 and 29 which reads thus :-

"25. Perusal of the above provision clearly goes to show that when the officer in-charge of a police station considers any complaint as non-cognizable and enters or cause to be entered the substance of information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe and refer the informant to the Magistrate, he is not entitled to investigate into such matter without the order of a Magistrate.

29. It is not an empty formality but certain rights accrue in favour of the said party against whom complaint or allegations are made. The word "shall" used in Sub-section (2) of Section 155 of Cr.P.C. clearly shows the intention of the Legislature and mandate that the police officer shall not investigate a non-cognizable case without orders of the Magistrate having power to try such case. Therefore, once an opinion is formed in writing and conveyed to the informant that

3 2022 SCC Online Bom 6691

apl 568 of 2024.doc

his case is non-cognizable case, the in-charge of the police station is certainly precluded from carrying out any further investigation in such non-cognizable case/complaint without the order of the jurisdictional Magistrate. There is a specific purpose for which Sub-section (2) of Section 155 is introduced. Such purpose cannot be taken away only by saying that the officer incharge did not record substance of information of non- cognizable case in the book maintained in the police station."

40. In Tulsidas Gopal Naik (supra), it was contended that initially the Police registered a non-cognizable case on receiving the information and directed the informant to approach the Magistrate, but due to some pressure on the police officer from higher authorities, he registered it as a cognizable offence. The facts in the matter in hand are quite similar. The wife of Respondent No.3 went to the Police Station on the day of incident itself and lodged her complaint, which is already reproduced in para 26. This information was considered as non-cognizable case and the informant was advised to approach the proper Court of law under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. On the next date, i.e. on 20.03.2023, Respondent No.3 filed another complaint in connection with the same incident and by giving some additional information, which Police considered as containing ingredients for registration of cognizable offence.

41. At this stage, it is necessary to note that Respondent No.3 went to the Police Station on the next day even though he very well knew that his wife lodged the complaint on the previous day and that it was registered as a non-cognizable case. The question remains as to whether the wife of Respondent No.3 failed to disclose all the facts to the Police and/or on the other side, the Police failed to record all the facts disclosed by the

apl 568 of 2024.doc

wife of Respondent No.3 while registering NC complaint. On both counts, the law provides a specific procedure. If the informant was not satisfied with the recording of her complaint by the Police, which is not at all the case put forth in this matter except claiming orally while arguing the matter, the said informant failed to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C. The only inference is that whatever was disclosed by the wife of Respondent No.3 on 19.03.2023 and considered as non-cognizable case was properly recorded by the Police. The said informant on showing dissatisfaction on recording the information correctly by the Police, ought to have approached the Superintendent of Police with all the details. No such procedure was adopted. Thus, it shows that the Police recorded the information correctly as disclosed by the informant on 19.03.2023, as non-cognizable case.

42. Secondly, when the Police on the next day i.e. on 20.03.2023, received some additional information about the same incident which was provided to them by Respondent No.3, were very well aware that NC complaint is registered in connection with the same incident and thus, was duty-bound to approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. for permission to investigate. There was no impediment on the investigating agency to approach the concerned Magistrate."

15. The aforesaid pronouncements appear to be on all four with the facts of

the case at hand. In the light of the registration of a non-cognizable case on

the day of occurrence for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and

506 of the Penal Code, if at all the Investigating Officer intended to proceed

apl 568 of 2024.doc

with the investigation, on the basis of the further/supplementary statement of

the first informant recorded on 13 March 2024, it was incumbent upon the IO

to obtain permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 155(2) of

the Code, 1973. Neither the said course was followed, nor was it a case of

the first informant (R2) that on 12 March 2024, she had narrated the incident

of outraging her modesty as well, and, yet, the Police did not record the same,

and, therefore, she had approached the superior police officer.

16. The endeavour of the learned APP and the learned Counsel for

Respondent No.2 to salvage the position by canvassing a submission that, at

this stage, the veracity of the statements of the witnesses cannot be decided,

especially when the first informant has stood by her allegations in her

statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code, now warrants

consideration.

17. First and foremost, it is pertinent to note that, pursuant to the statement

of the first informant recorded on 13 March 2024, a crime has been registered

for the offence punishable under Section 354 only. An indictment of outraging

the modesty of the first informant was, thus, sought to be made. Before

appreciating as to whether the prosecution was actuated by malice or with a

view to wreck vengeance, it may be apposite to keep in view the essential

ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Penal Code.

18. From the text of Section 354, it becomes abundantly clear that the

apl 568 of 2024.doc

linchpin of the offence is, assault or use of criminal force to any woman with

intent to outrage the modesty or knowledge that by the said act, the modesty

of the woman would be outraged. Evidently, the intention is not the sole

element of mens rea. Knowledge that modesty is likely to be outraged is

sufficient to constitute the offence, sans intention to outrage the modesty.

19. A profitable reference in this context can be made to a three Judge

Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v/s.

Major Singh4, wherein the majority enunciated the ingredients of the offence

punishable under Section 354 of IPC, as under :

"15. Section 10 of the Indian Penal Code explains that "woman"

denotes a female human being of any age. The expression "woman" is used in s. 354 in conformity with this explanation, see s. 7. The offence punishable under s. 354 is an assault on or use of criminal force to a woman with the intention of outraging her modesty or with the knowledge of the likelihood of doing so. The Code does not define "modesty". What then is a woman's modesty ?

16. I think that the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. The modesty of an adult female is writ large on her body. Young or old, intelligent or imbecile, awake or sleeping, the woman Possesses a modesty capable of being outraged. Whoever uses criminal force to her with intent to outrage her modesty commits an offence punishable under s. 354. The culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. The reaction of the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not

4 AIR 1967 SC 63

apl 568 of 2024.doc

always decisive, as, for example, when the accused with a corrupt mind stealthily touches the flesh of a sleeping woman. She may be an idiot, she may be under the spell of anesthesia, she may be sleeping, she may be unable to appreciate the significance of the act; nevertheless, the offender is punishable under the section." (emphasis supplied)

20. In the case of Vidyadharan V/s. State of Kerala5, after following the

aforesaid pronouncement in the case of State of Punjab V/s. Major Singh

(supra), the ingredients of the offence punishable under section 354 were

spelled out as under :

"9. In order to constitute the offence under Section 354 mere knowledge that the modesty of a woman is likely to be outraged is sufficient without any deliberate intention having such outraged alone for its object. There is no abstract conception of modesty that can apply to all cases. (See State of Punjab v. Major Singh (AIR 1967 SC 63). A careful approach has to be adopted by the Court while dealing with a case alleging outraged of modesty. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 354 IPC are as under :

                 (i)     that the person assaulted must be a woman;
                 (ii)    that the accused must have used criminal force on her,
                 and

(iii) that the criminal force must have been used on the woman intending thereby to outrage her modesty."

(emphasis supplied)

21. On the aforesaid touchstone, reverting to the facts of the case, the 5 (2004) 1 SCC 215

apl 568 of 2024.doc

entire setting of the matter deserves to be kept in mind. Evidently, the

incident occurred in a hall where a number of workers of the political party

had assembled. The first informant was allegedly discussing the issue of

redevelopment of the buildings under SRA scheme and made an insinuation

that few office bearers of the political party were instrumental in sabotaging

the said redevelopment. The overt act attributed to the applicant was that of

pushing the first informant back by touching her chest.

22. In a situation of the present nature, even if the version of the first

informant is taken at par, ex-facie, it would be rather hazardous to draw an

inference that the alleged act was accompanied with the intention or

knowledge to outrage the modesty of the first informant.

23. Indeed, out of 59 witnesses whose statements have been recorded, 58

witnesses have not supported the first informant and have given a counter

version. It is true, at this stage, the Court is not supposed to embark upon an

exercise of testing the veracity of the witnesses, in the sense that the

reliability of the statement of one witness is weighed against another witness.

However, in the totality of the circumstances, if viewed in the context of

omission to state the most notorious fact, when the report was lodged under

two hours of the occurrence, the statements of more than 50 persons who

were present at the time of the alleged occurrence, cannot be simply brushed

aside. Even Mrs. Khanvilkar, with whom the first informant allegedly had

apl 568 of 2024.doc

conversation, completely disowned the version of the first information. The

statement made by the first informant under Section 164 of the Code before

the learned Magistrate, therefore, cannot be placed on a higher pedestal.

24. Resultantly, the Court is persuaded to hold that the propositions (1) and

(7) in para No.102 of the judgment in the case of State of Haryana V/s. Ch.

Bhajan Lal and Ors.6 are attracted to the facts of the case at hand. The

continuation of the prosecution would clearly amount to an abuse of the

process of the Court. Hence, the Criminal Application deserves to be allowed.

25. Thus, the following order :

ORDER

(i) Criminal Application stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses A1

and A2.

(ii) No costs.

( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

6 (1992) Supp(1) SCC 102335

Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 16/12/2025 19:47:51