Bombay High Court
Dhanashree D. Vhatkar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 27 February, 2025
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
2025:BHC-AS:10879-DB
WAKLE
MANOJ
JANARDHAN Manoj 905-APL-761-2016.doc
Digitally signed by
WAKLE MANOJ
JANARDHAN
Date: 2025.03.07
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
18:35:53 +0530
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.761 OF 2016
Miss Dhanashree D. Vhatkar
Aged : 36 years, Occu: Service,
Hindu, residing at A-402,
Versova Gurudrishti, CHS,
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Nagar,
Andheri- W, Mumbai- 400053 .... Applicant
v/s.
1) The State of Maharashtra
2) The Senior Inspector of Police,
Bandra Kurla Complex Police Station
Mumbai.
3) Pradip Sheshadri Ratnam
Age: 48 years, residing at 1401,
Vinayak Aangan, Old Prabhadevi Road,
Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400026
4) Infrastructure Leasing & finance Ltd.,
IL & FS Financial Centre, Plot C22,
G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra- East, Mumbai- 400 051. .... Respondents
Mr. Sanjeev P. Kadam, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Prashant P. Raul,
Mr. Pratik Deshmukh & Adv. Aditi Rajput i/by. Mr. Gajendra
Jadhav, for the Applicant.
1/8
::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2025 07:19:44 :::
Manoj 905-APL-761-2016.doc
Mr. P.H. Gaikwad, APP for the State.
Mr. Gaurav Sharma, for the Respondent No.3, (Through V.C.).
Ms. Sulabha Rane i/by Parab & Associates, for the Respondent No.4.
Mr. Yogesh Chavan, Sr. PI, B.K.C. Police Station Mumbai, present.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, &
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
DATED : 27th FEBRUARY, 2025.
JUDGMENT :
- (Per Shyam C. Chandak J.).
. Instant Application filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing and setting aside of an
F.I.R. bearing C.R. No.280 of 2015, dated 19 th December 2015,
registered with Bandra Kurla Complex Police Station Mumbai, under
Sections 427, 441 and 453 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the
Applicant. The Application is opposed by Respondent Nos.3 and 4
with their separate reply.
2) Heard Mr.Kadam, the learned Senior Counsel for the
Applicant, Mr.Gaikwad, learned APP for the State, Mr.Sharma, the
learned Advocate for the Respondent No.3 and Ms. Rane, the learned
Advocate for the Respondent No.4. Perused the record.
3) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally,
with consent of the parties.
Manoj 905-APL-761-2016.doc
3.1) Record indicates that by Order dated 21 st October 2016,
the Applicant was permitted to array the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 as
party to this Application. Further, an ad-interim relief was granted
and it was directed that the investigation shall continue but the
charge-sheet shall not be filed, till the next date.
4) Brief facts are that, the impugned F.I.R. came to be
registered on an oral report filed by Respondent No.3 on 19 th
December 2015. In the said report Respondent No.3 narrated that on
19th December 2015, at about 10:45 a.m., he arrived in his office i.e.,
IL&FS Company and then he worked for the whole day. At about
19:00 hours, he went to Gym and return to the office at about 20:30
hours. At that time, his security person informed him that the
Applicant has forcibly entered in the office. Therefore, Respondent
No.3 instructed the security to keep watch on the Applicant to
prevent damage to documents and articles lying in the office.
Thereafter, Respondent No.3 came to the ground floor. Then he
checked the entry book and found that, the Applicant has made an
entry in the said book that she is a staff of IL&FS Company and came
there for official work. However, said entry was incorrect as the
Applicant had already left the job in the said company. Then, the
Respondent No.3 came to the police station and informed the said
Manoj 905-APL-761-2016.doc
incident. In turn, police visited the said office alongwith Respondent
No.3. At that time, the Applicant was leaving the office. Seeing the
police, the Applicant sat in a chair. Therefore, women police inquired
with the Applicant about her presence there. The Applicant replied
that, "I am sexually harassed here, however, no action has been taken
in that regard, therefore, she came there". Then, police took the
Applicant down. At that time, the Applicant sat on a footpath and,
cried shouting loudly. Further, it is stated that the Applicant
damaged a Laptop and other papers in the office.
5) Learned Advocate for the Applicant submitted that,
earlier to the registration of this crime, the Applicant had filed a
report in respect of her sexual harassment by Respondent No.3.
Thereafter the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 started to persuade the
Applicant to settle the matter on their terms, to which the Applicant
was not ready. As such, this F.I.R. is nothing but one, filed out of
vengeance. He submitted that, the Applicant had no criminal intent
when she entered in the office of the Respondents. In fact, the
Applicant had gone there just to collect her personal things. He
submitted that, even otherwise, the Applicant was not seen while
actually damaging the Laptop and documents lying in the office. The
said damage is not explained in the F.I.R. As such, there is no prima
Manoj 905-APL-761-2016.doc
facie case against the Applicant to cause her to undergo a prosecution
for the alleged offences.
6) In the reply, Mr. Gaikwad, the learned APP submitted
that, the Applicant has admitted that on the relevant date and at time
she had gone to the office of the Respondents. Before entering the
office, the Applicant made a false entry that she is an employee of the
said office. Then the Applicant damaged the Laptop and documents
lying in the office. As such, sufficient case is made out against the
Applicant of having committed the alleged offences. Therefore, there
is no substance in the Application.
7) Mr. Sharma for the Respondent No.3 and Ms. Rane for
the Respondent No.4 are in agreement with the submissions made by
the learned APP.
8) Section 441 of I.P.C. defines the offence of Criminal
trespass. Said Section 441 reads thus:-
"441. Criminal trespass. - Whoever enters into or upon
property in the possession of another with intent to
commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any
person in possession of such property, or having lawfully
entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains
there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy
any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is
said to commit "criminal trespass"."
Manoj 905-APL-761-2016.doc
8.1) Section 425 of I.P.C. defines the offence of mischief,
which is punishable under Section 427. Said Section 425 reads thus:-
"425. Mischief. - Whoever with intent to cause, or
knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or
damage to the public or to any person, causes the
destruction of any property, or any such change in any
property or in the situation thereof as destroys or
diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously,
commits "mischief"."
8.2) Section 442 defines house trespass, Section 443 defines
lurking house-trespass and Section 445 defines house breaking.
Offence of Sections 443 & 445 are punishable under Section 453 of
the I.P.C. Said Sections 442 and 443 read as under:-
"442. House-trespass. - Whoever commits criminal
trespass by entering into or remaining in any building,
tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building
used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody
of property, is said to commit "house-trespass".
443. Lurking house-trespass. - Whoever commits house-
trespass having taken precautions to conceal such house-
trespass from some person who has a right to exclude or
eject the trespasser from the building, tent or vessel
which is the subject of the trespass, is said to commit
"lurking house-trespass"."
9) On a careful consideration of the text of the F.I.R., what
Manoj 905-APL-761-2016.doc
we understand is that the Applicant has not entered into the office of
Respondent No.3 by concealing her presence. In fact, she accessed
there by mentioning her correct name in the entry register and
openly. Secondly, we noticed that, even though the F.I.R. claims
about damage to a Laptop and documents lying in the office, the
description of the Laptop and documents is not stated in the F.I.R.
No one has seen the Applicant while damaging the Laptop and
documents. As such what mischief exactly the Applicant has
committed, is missing in the F.I.R. There is no material showing that,
the Applicant intimidated, insulted or annoyed any person in the
office of the Respondents. Therefore it cannot be said that the
Applicant committed the offences of criminal trespass and mischief
defined in Sections 441 and 427. In absence of the material
constituting the offence of criminal trespass, the offence of lurking
house-trespass or house breaking punishable under Section 453 of
I.P.C. cannot be held against the Applicant. The offence of Section
456 of I.P.C. is not alleged.
10) In view thereof, continuation of the impugned F.I.R.
would be an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, said F.I.R. is
liable to be quashed and set aside, invoking the jurisdiction of this
Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Manoj 905-APL-761-2016.doc
11) The offence was registered 9 years before. The Report
dated 27th February, 2025 submitted to the APP by the Senior P.I.
Mr.Yogesh Chavan is produced on record. Said report states that, the
investigation papers of the subject crime are not found. In this
regard, when the then investigation officer Mr.Garande was
contacted, he informed that after preparing charge-sheet in the year
2019, he submitted it with Mr.Pradeep More, the then P.I. (Crimes).
However, the said papers are not traced and the same are being
searched. Hence, following Order is passed.
-ORDER-
i) Impugned F.I.R. bearing C.R. No.280 of 2015,
dated 19th December 2015, registered with Bandra Kurla
Complex Police Station Mumbai, under Sections 427, 441
and 453 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the
Applicant is quashed and set aside.
ii) Application is allowed in aforesaid terms.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
