[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Kapil Bhgwanprasad Anand vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 17 December, 2025
Author: Revati Mohite Dere
Bench: Revati Mohite Dere
2025:BHC-AS:55922-DB
36.WP-119-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.119 OF 2025
Sadhana Kapil Anand )
Age - 60 Years, Occ. Retired )
Permanently residing at - )
1602, B Wing, Runwal Elegate, )
Lokhandwala, Andheri (W), )
Mumbai- 400 053 ) ... Petitioner
V/s.
1. State of Maharashtra )
Through Versova Police Station, Mumbai )
)
2. Ganesh Madhukar Sonawane )
Through Versova Police Station, Mumbai ) ... Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5309 OF 2024
Kapil Bhagwanprasad Anand )
Age - 70 Years, Occ. Retired )
Permanently residing at - )
1602, B Wing, Runwal Elegate, )
Lokhandwala, Andheri (W), )
Mumbai- 400 053 ) ... Petitioner
V/s.
1. State of Maharashtra )
Through Versova Police Station, Mumbai )
)
2. Ganesh Madhukar Sonawane )
Through Versova Police Station, Mumbai ) ... Respondent
1/12
::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/12/2025 20:49:34 :::
36.WP-119-2024.doc
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5303 OF 2024
Advait Kapil Anand )
Age - 30 Years, Occ. Service )
Permanently residing at - )
1602, B Wing, Runwal Elegate, )
Lokhandwala, Andheri (W), )
Mumbai- 400 053 ) ... Petitioner
)
V/s. )
)
1. State of Maharashtra )
Through Versova Police Station, Mumbai )
)
2. Ganesh Madhukar Sonawane )
Through Versova Police Station, Mumbai ) ... Respondents
Ms. Sana Raees Khan a/w. Ms. Neha Balani, Mr. Harsh Shah, Advocate
for the Petitioner
Ms. Gauri S. Rao, APP, for the Respondent - State
Mr. Sachin D. Ugale, PSI, Versova Police Station, Mumbai, present.
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 1ST DECEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 17TH DECEMBER 2025
2/12
::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/12/2025 20:49:34 :::
36.WP-119-2024.doc
JUDGMENT (Per Sandesh D. Patil, J.) :
-
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the consent of
the parties the petition is taken up for final disposal. Learned APP
waives notice on behalf of the respondent No.1-State.
3. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner is approaching
this Court seeking quashing of the FIR bearing CR No. 452 of 2025
registered with the Versova Police Station as well as the chargesheet filed
in the said case.
4. The FIR is filed under the provisions of Sections 352,
351(2), 221, 132, 121 (1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The
petitioner in Writ Petition No.119 of 2025 and the petitioner in Writ
Petition No.5309 of 2024 are wife and husband respectively. The
petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5303 of 2024 is their son.
36.WP-119-2024.doc
5. The respondent No.2 is a police officer working in the
Traffic Department, who is the first informant. The case of respondent
No.2 is that on 13th August 2024, when he was discharging his duties at
Mhada Colony Junction, Four Bungalow, Andheri at about 15.00 hours,
another police constable, Mr. Bharat Chaudhary came on the same
junction to help him ease the traffic. At about 19.05 hours, when both
were discharging their duty, he saw a car coming and noticed that the
driver of the vehicle was wearing his seat belt, however, the person
sitting besides him a lady, was not wearing the seat belt. He tried to stop
the car, however the driver of the car showed him his finger and then
stopped the car about 50 meters away. The complainant went towards
the car along with the machine to levy 'E-Challan'. In this process, when
he was clicking photo of the car, the lady sitting next to the driver
abused him verbally. At that time, when the complainant was recording
the said incident in his mobile, the said lady assaulted the complainant
on his chest, so also slapped him on his cheek. At that time, another old
person accompanying them started abusing the complainant. The driver
of the car also threatened him of dire consequences. The entire incident
was recorded by police constable, Mr. Bharat Chaudhary on his cell
phone.
36.WP-119-2024.doc
6. Since all the accused persons had prevented the complainant
from discharging his official duty, the complainant came to the police
station to lodge a complaint and accordingly the complaint was lodged
under Sections 352, 351 (2), 221, 132 and 121(1) of Indian Penal Code.
7. During one of the hearing of the present Writ Petition, this
Court (Coram : A.S. Gadkari and Rajesh Patil, JJ.) passed the following
order on 25th July 2025 :-
"1) Perusal of charge-sheet indicates that Bharat Govinda
Chaudhari, Police Constable, is an alleged eye-witness
to the offence under Section 132 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNS'
for short), wherein Shri Ganesh Madukar Sonawane
alleges assault and criminal intimidations by Petitioner.
Shri Bharat Chaudhari in his statement dated 16th
August 2024 has categorically stated that he has
recorded the incident in his mobile phone.
2) We therefore direct the Investigating Officer to produce
the said video clipping before this Court on next
occasion.
3) Stand over to 8th August 2025."
36.WP-119-2024.doc
8. Thereafter, this Court in its order dated 17th November 2025
observed that the learned APP has produced pendrive as directed by this
Court vide order dated 25th July 2025; containing recording of the said
incident. Accordingly we have perused the contents of the pendrive
handed over to us in our chambers.
9. We have also perused the chargesheet annexed along with
the petition. We have perused the statement of the first informant, the
statement of Mr. Bharat Chaudhary, Police Constable, who was an eye
witness to the entire incidence. His statement is in consonance with the
statement of the first informant. He has clearly stated that the said
accused Sadhana Anand has not only verbally abused the complainant,
but also assaulted him on his chest and has slapped him. He further
states that the other accused persons were also verbally abusing the
complainant, a police officer in filthy language.
10. Statements of few other passer-by Mr. Mohan Khandare and
Ms. Nirmala Shinde are recorded, who also state that one of the accused
lady had assaulted the complainant on his chest, so also she had slapped
the police officer, who was on duty.
36.WP-119-2024.doc
11. Learned counsel Ms. Sana Khan contended that even on a
plain reading of the FIR as well as chargesheet, no offence can be said to
have been made out against the petitioners. She submitted that no such
incident had taken place and that in fact, the complainant was not
allowing the petitioners to leave, so also was not taking any action
against the persons coming from the wrong side of the road on their
scooter. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as a matter of fact,
it is the petitioners who had called for police help. The learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the facts of the FIR
are fabricated, concocted and without any basis and solely with an
intention to falsely implicate the petitioners in the case and that the
petitioners have been falsely roped in the matter. Learned counsel for the
petitioners prayed that the proceeding against the petitioners be
quashed. In support of her case, learned counsel for the Petitioners relied
upon the following judgments :-
1. Rishab Surendra Dara and Others V/s. State of
Maharashtra and Anr. (2019) SCC Online Bom 13205
2. Aditya Anilkumar Thorat V/s. State of Maharashtra
and Ors. (2022) SCC Online Bom 7056
3. M.S. Ahlawat V/s. State of Haryana and Anr.
(2001) 1 SCC 278
36.WP-119-2024.doc
4. State of Haryana and Ors. V/s. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.
(1992) SCC (Cri) 426
5. B.N. John V/s. State of UP and Anr. (Hon'ble Supreme
Court Judgment) (2025) INSC 4
6. Amer Khan V/s. State of Maharashtra
(2023) SCC Online Bom 818
7. Hushad Bacha V/s. Eric Vegas
(2025) BHC - AS; 2625 - DB
12. She particularly relied upon the judgment in the matter of
Hushad Bacha V/s. Eric Vegas , where proceeding/FIR was quashed
against the petitioner therein. She stated that in that case also the
accused therein, who was mother of the co-accused created a scene at the
police station and is alleged to have touched the dress of the police
constable, pursuant to which two buttons of shirt were broken. She says
that the facts in that case are similar to the present case and this court be
pleased to quash the FIR as well as the Chargesheet.
13. Learned APP appearing for the State submitted that offence
is made out against the petitioners. She states that the police have carried
out investigation and have filed chargesheet. She further states that the
video recording also shows that the alleged offence had taken place. She
36.WP-119-2024.doc
stated that the present case is not a fit case for quashing of the FIR and
the Chargesheet. In the end, she submitted that the Petition be dismissed
with costs.
14. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
With their able assistance, we have perused the entire chargesheet and
the video which was recorded. The said video forms part of chargesheet
and is produced in the pendrive.
15. On perusal of the said contents of the pendrive, it is clear
that the petitioner in Writ Petition No.119 of 2025, her husband and her
son were verbally abusing the complainant. We have seen in the video
the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5309 of 2024 abusing the
complainant in utmost filthy language. The petitioner in Writ Petition
No. 5303 of 2024 was also along with them. We have also seen that the
petitioner in Writ Petition No. 119 of 2025 had not only verbally abused
the complainant, a police officer in filthy language, but has also assaulted
the complainant on his chest and slapped him on his cheek.
16. We have also perused the statement of the witnesses which
are annexed to the chargesheet. All the witnesses are eye witnesses. They
36.WP-119-2024.doc
have stated the manner in which the complainant was abused by the
petitioners in utmost filthy language. They also stated that the
complainant was assaulted by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.119 of
2025 on his chest and also slapped on his cheek. At this juncture, prima
facie there is nothing to disbelieve the statements of the said witness,
who are eye witnesses. One of the eye witness is a police constable, who
was on duty along with the present complainant. Thus, it cannot be said
that no offence is made out against the petitioners. The evidentary value
of the statements will be considered at the time of trial. At this stage, it
cannot be said that no case is made out against the petitioners. This is a
fit case, where the petitioners need to be put on for trial before the Trial
Court.
17. We have gone through the judgments cited by the Petitioner
before us. In the case of Rishabh Dara (supra), it was the case where the
petitioner expressed his inclination to withdraw the complaint filed by
him under Section 156 (3) of Cr.p.c. against the complainant. The
complainant, therefore, stated that he has no objection to quash the FIR.
In the case of Aditya Thorat V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. cited by
the petitioner, it was the case where chargesheet was not filed. In the
36.WP-119-2024.doc
case of M.S. Ahlawat V/s. State of Haryana , the facts of the case are
entirely different and were in connection with the offence of perjury
committed by the petitioner therein. The case of Hushad Bacha was one,
where the complainant was assaulted in the police station by the mother
of the accused No.1 therein. This is a case where the assault was on the
complainant, who was a police officer, discharging his duties.
18. We are of the opinion that the complainant, a Police Officer
was discharging his official duties. In the event, if we were to quash the
present FIR despite the aforesaid material on record, it would certainly
demoralise the police force. It would send a wrong message to the
society and the police officers would be deterred from discharging their
duties fearlessly. We are therefore not inclined to entertain the present
writ petition.
19. None of the parameters laid down in the case of (State of
Haryana and Ors. V/s. Bhajanlal and Ors (1992) SCC (Cri.) 426) are
attracted in the present case. Resultantly we pass the following order :-
36.WP-119-2024.doc
ORDER
(i) Writ Petitions are dismissed.
(ii) Rule stands discharged. There shall be no orders as
to costs.
All the concerned parties to act on the authenticated copy of
this order.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)
amraut
