Bombay High Court
Moh. Ziaullah Sheikh Ataullah vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Nagpuri ... on 17 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:12217-DB
J-apl786.20 final.odt 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.786 OF 2020
Moh. Ziaullah Khan Sheikh Ataullah,
Aged 29 years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o. Jamil Colony,
Nagpuri Gate Police Station, Amravati,
Tq. and Distt. Amravati. : APPLICANT
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O. of P.S.
Nagpuri Gate Police Station,
Amravati, Tq. and Distt. Amravati.
2. Nasrin Saba Anwar Hussain,
Age 25 years,
Occupation : Housewife,
R/o. Paradise Colony,
Amravati, Tq. and Distt. Amravati. : NON-APPLICANTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. N. Tikar, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. M.J. Khan, Additional Public Prosecutor for Non-applicant No.1.
Ms. A.R. Sharma, Advocate for Non-applicant No.2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 07th NOVEMBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 17th NOVEMBER, 2025.
JUDGMENT :
(Per : Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.)
1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned
counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The applicant by way of present application filed under
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is praying for quashing
and setting aside the First Information Report Vide Crime
No.319/2020 registered by the non-applicant No.1 on 23.9.2020 for
the offence punishable under Sections 354, 504 and 586 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. It is the case of the non-applicant No.2/informant that
on 22.9.2020 at about 03.30 to 04.00 p.m. when she was returning
after dropping her children at her mother's house, at that time the
applicant came near her and since there was nobody, he
misbehaved with her thereby outraging her modesty by touching
her. He also threatened her of dire consequences, if the matter is
reported to anybody. Since the non-applicant No.2 was frightened,
she did not inform her husband but also stated that two witnesses,
namely, Salimbhai and Bablubhai had seen her while the applicant
misbehaved with her. On the basis of this report, the non-applicant
No.1 registered the First Information Report which is challenged in
the present application.
4. We have heard Mr. N. Tikar, learned counsel for the
applicant and Mr. M.J. Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for non-applicant No.1 and Ms. A.R. Sharma, learned counsel for
the non-applicant No.2.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that lodging
of First Information Report is nothing but abuse of process of law
and out of vengeance nourished by the husband of the
non-applicant No.2 against the present applicants. He invites our
attention to the First Information Report lodged by the sister of the
present applicant against husband of the non-applicant No.2
bearing F.I.R. No.0250/2020 pursuant to which an offence has been
registered against the husband of non-applicant No.2. He,
therefore, submits that the present First Information Report is
nothing but counterblast to the said F.I.R. He also submits that the
husband of non-applicant No.2 is seasoned criminal and has also
placed before us a crime chart wherein said husband of
non-applicant No.2 is involved.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submits that the allegations in the First Information Report
prima facie constitute an offence of outraging of modesty and,
therefore, according to him it would not be a fit case to exercise
inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
7. Learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2 while
supporting the contentions advanced by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor submits that only because there is some animus
between the parties cannot be a ground to quash the First
Information Report more particularly when the complaint squarely
shows the commission of offence. In the backdrop of these facts we
have perused the complaint which has let to the First Information
Report along with the charge-sheet filed by the investigating Officer
after completion of the investigation.
8. It is a settled principle of law that while exercising
powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a
prima facie case has to be seen and the probable defence of the
accused which he can taken during the trial and cannot be a factor
to exercise the jurisdiction. It is further well settled principle of law
that the inherent powers cannot be exercised to stifle a legitimate
prosecution. A beneficial reference in this regard can be made to
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal
No.349/2019 dated 5.3.2019, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi
Narayan and others and the relevant paras are reproduce as under :
"9.3 In the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of
Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, after considering the
decision in the case of Gian Singh, in paragraph
29, this Court summed up as under :
29.-------------
29.1-----------
29.2.----------
29.3-----------
29.4-----------
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High
Court is to examine as to whether the
possibility of conviction is remote and
bleak and continuation of criminal cases
would put the accused to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme
injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal cases.
13. Considering the law on the point and the
other decisions of this Court on the point,
referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as
under :
i) ----------
ii) such power is not to be exercised in
those prosecution which involved
heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape,
dacoity, etc. Such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious
impact on society;"
9. In the backdrop of these facts if the complaint leading
to lodging of First Information Report is perused, the non-applicant
No.2 alleges specifically that the applicant threatened the
non-applicant No.2 and outraged her modesty. There are prima
facie allegations against the applicant in the present complaint.
Furthermore, one Salim Israil Saudagar whose statement has been
recorded by the Investigating Agency during the course of
investigation also states that he has seen the applicant and
non-applicant No.2. He further states that the applicant was
misbehaving with the non-applicant No.2. In view of this, it cannot
be said that there is no prima facie case against the applicant. The
veracity of the allegation or the aspects of the parties having
previous animus leading to each one of them filing cross
complaints/F.I.Rs. against each other cannot be a ground to
exercise inherent jurisdiction. The only aspect which needs to be
considered is presence/absence of the prima facie case looking at
the averments/allegations made in the First Information Report.
10. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered
opinion that there is triable case against the accused and therefore,
it would not be a fit case to exercise inherent jurisdiction as the
same would amount to stifle legitimate prosecution and, therefore,
we pass the following order :
ORDER
The application is rejected.
(Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.) (Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)
wadode
Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/11/2025 18:04:25
