[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Ashish Rakesh Chawla vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Its Pso, ... on 26 February, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:3384-DB
apl949.2024-+1.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 949 OF 2024
APPLICANT : ASHISH RAKESH CHAWLA,
Age 28 years, Occu- CA,
R/o Plot No. 173, Chawla Palace,
Vivekanand Nagar, Nagpur.
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENTS : 1) STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,
Through Police Station Officer,
P.S. Beltarodi, Nagpur.
2) XYZ (Victim)
Crime No. 109/2024
P.S. Beltarodi, Nagpur.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 948 OF 2024
APPLICANT : RAKESH BALBIRSINGH CHAWLA,
Age 59 years, Occu- Business,
R/o Plot No. 173, Chawla Palace,
Vivekanand Nagar, Nagpur.
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENTS : 1) STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,
Through its Police Station Officer,
P.S. Beltarodi, Nagpur.
2) XYZ (Victim)
Crime No. 109/2024
P.S. Beltarodi, Nagpur.
rkn
apl949.2024-+1.odt
2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Arjun V. Bobde, counsel with Ms Shubhangi A. Jadhao, counsel for applicants
in both applications.
Ms D.I. Charlewar, APP for respondent/State
Mr Nitesh T. Gwalwanshi, counsel for respondent No.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
DATE OF RESERVE : 05/02/2026
DATE OF DECISION : 26/02/2026
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of
Mr. Arjun V. Bobde, counsel with Ms Shubhangi A. Jadhao, counsel for
the applicants, Ms D.I. Charlewar, learned APP for respondent /State and
Mr. Nitesh T. Gwalwanshi, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the
application is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.
2. In both these applications, the challenge is to the same
criminal proceedings registered against the applicants for the offence
punishable under Sections 370, 370(1) read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956'), and Sections 4, 8 and
12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for
short 'the Act of 2012') vide crime No.109 of 2024. The applicants
further seek quashing of the proceedings registered as Special Case No.
207 of 2024.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on receipt of
secrete information on 12/02/2024 regarding the prostitution activities
being conducted at Hotel Krishnakunj (OYO), situated within the
jurisdiction of Beltarodi Police Station, the police authorities arranged a
decoy operation by deputing a dummy customer along with a panch
rkn
apl949.2024-+1.odt
witness. During the raid conducted at the said premises, a minor victim
girl was allegedly found in one of the rooms of the hotel along with a
customer. Certain articles, including marked currency notes, were seized,
leading to registration of the offence against multiple accused persons.
4. During the investigation, it is transpired that hotel premises
belonged to the accused persons and was allegedly given on rent to
co-accused Gajanan Sonwane for running the hotel business. The
prosecution alleges that accused persons, acting in concert, facilitated
prostitution activities by providing accommodation to customers and the
victim girl for monetary consideration. The statements of witnesses, spot
panchanama, call detail records, and documentary material collected
during investigation are relied upon by investigating agency to attribute
the involvement of the applicants along with other accused persons.
5. In the background of this case of prosecution, the applicants
approached before this Court, who are the father and son. The applicants
came with a submission that they were falsely implicated in the matter.
According to them, neither the recitals of first information report nor the
material collected during the investigation disclose any specific role
attributed to them so as to attract the ingredients of the alleged offence.
6. It is the submission of the applicants that hotel premises had
been given on rent to the co-accused - Gajanan Sonwane, who was
exclusively responsible for running and managing the business operations.
The applicants contend that merely because they are the owner and son of
the owner, cannot be fastened with criminal liability in absence of any
material showing knowledge or participation in the alleged activities.
7. The applicants have relied upon the order passed by this Court
while granting bail to the present applicants. According to the applicants,
rkn
apl949.2024-+1.odt
this Court, while granting bail, recorded the finding that, "Allegations in
the statement of victim shows that co-accused Alok Gaikwad took her in
the said hospital. Thus, even if entire case of the prosecution is accepted
as it is, it nowhere shows that it was the present applicants who were
running the prostitution business in the said hotel. Thus, considering the
recitals of the FIR and the statement of the victim, the applicants are
neither a human trafficker nor a brothel owners. The only allegation
against him is that in the said hotel which is owned by them, a room was
allotted to the said customer and the victim". This finding of this Court
according to applicants is relevant to consider the case for quashing the
proceeding registered against them in the matter.
8. It is further submitted that none of the ingredients of Sections
3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Act, 1956 are attracted against the applicants in the
matter, nor the offence is made out under Sections 370 and 370(1) of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
9. The prosecution has strongly opposed the present application.
According to the prosecution, the offence in question pertains to
trafficking and sexual exploitation of a minor girl from the premises of
Hotel Krishnakunj (OYO) and the investigation has revealed that said
premises were being systemically used for illegal prostitution activities.
10. It is further contention of the prosecution that though the
premises were given on rent to co-accused Gajanan Sonwane, he had no
independent control over the affairs of the Hotel, and the present
applicants were supervising all the affairs of the hotel. As such, the
applicants cannot escape liability merely by ascertaining their absence at
the time of raid, particularly when the offence allegedly involved
organized activities carried out from the premises over a period of time.
rkn
apl949.2024-+1.odt
The question as to whether the applicants have knowledge of or have
their participation in the alleged activities is a matter of consideration and
same can be established and proved only parties lead their respective
evidence during the trial.
11. In the present matter, the complainant also appeared and filed
the reply. The complainant, in her reply, stated that Memorandum of
Understanding dated 01/01/2024 relied by the applicants is first time
produced before this Court. Complainant raised doubt about validity and
authenticity of agreement on various count. According to complainant
such disputed document cannot be relied upon at this stage of matter. The
authenticity of this document can be tested in trial only.
12. It is also pointed out that, as per the Clause-18 of the
Memorandum of Understanding, it was agreed between the parties that
original document was to be retained by the applicants. As such, copy of
this agreement was in the custody of the present applicants. However,
near about two months, same was not produced on the record nor it is a
part of a charge-sheet. Upon perusal of the signatures of the applicant's
father, co-accused Gajanan Sonwane, and witnesses, are looked into, it is
clear that same varies from first agreement, which was executed between
the parties. So also, there is no clarification as to why this memorandum
of understanding was not submitted by them before the investigation
officers. As such, according to the non-applicant No.2, all these variations
creates doubt, and it is stated that same was prepared subsequently by the
applicants to get benefit of the same in the matter. Therefore, at this stage,
a document which is not a part of a chargesheet cannot be relied upon in
the matter.
13. On the basis of submission of both the parties, I have perused
rkn
apl949.2024-+1.odt
the entire record and considered the case laws cited by the parties in the
matter.
14. In the circumstances, before considering the merits of the
matter, it will be relevant to consider the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Pradeepkumar Kesharwani Vs
State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2025 SCC Online 1947 , wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India outlined four structured steps to access a
claim for quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. The relevant paragraph No. 20 of the said judgment is
reproduced as under:-
20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the
veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking
the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C.:--
(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused
is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of
sterling and impeccable quality?
(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the
accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges
levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject
and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e.,
the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to
dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.
(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the
accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant;
and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by
the prosecution/complainant?
(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result
in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends
of justice?
If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial
conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such
criminal-proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under
Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing
justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which
would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as,
rkn
apl949.2024-+1.odt
proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the
same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. [(See:
Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No.
174 of 2013)]
From perusal of this judgment, it is clear that the four steps are
required to be satisfied by the applicants, and only if all four steps are
found to be in affirmative, then this Court can exercise the power vested
in it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
15. In the light of observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court, I have
considered the submission of applicants. Firstly applicant has relied upon
the order of this Court while granting regular bail by this Court. In this
regard it is pertinent to note that observation made by this Court while
granting bail cannot be made applicable while considering the case for
quashment of the proceeding. The criteria required to be considered in
both the proceeding is different. Hence, in my opinion this submission of
applicants is not acceptable in the matter.
16. The second submission of the applicants is about the lease
agreement, to demonstrate premises were given on rent to co-accused.
However, it is pertinent to note that, the prosecution and complainant
have pointed out from this lease agreement that, earlier lease agreement
was of dated 01/06/2020 for a period of one year for running the hotel.
Then for period of 2021 to 2024 there was no agreement but suddenly
applicant relied upon the agreement i.e. memorandum of understanding
is of dated 01/01/2024. The complainant has rightly pointed out this
lease agreement was not a part of chargesheet nor same was produced by
the applicants during the investigation. So also, there are certain lacunas
i.e. there is no mentioned about consideration, the signature of the parties
stand varies with the earlier agreement. As per terms of the agreement
original copy of the agreement was in the custody of the applicants and
rkn
apl949.2024-+1.odt
same was not immediately produced by them. As such, quashing cannot
be permitted on the basis of disputed documents whose validity is itself in
question. Therefore, in my opinion, the material relied upon by the
applicants does not rule out the assertions contained in the charges
levelled against the accused. So also document relied upon is not sound,
reasonable and indubitable or impeccable quality.
17. In the present matter, during the investigation, the
prosecution has specifically collected the CDR/SDR records which reveal
that the applicants were in contact with the co-accused, Gajanan
Sonwane. So also, the record disclosed the fact that names of the
applicants were also taken by the co-accused during the course of
investigation, stating that they were supervising the hotel. Hence,
considering this material, which is available on record it is sufficient to
reject and overrule the assertions made by the applicant in his application.
18. It is further pertinent to note that all the assertion made by the
applicants are specifically denied by the prosecution. The investigating
agency has produced the sufficient material to demonstrate that there is
some involvement of applicants in the matter. Therefore, considering the
reply and the documents which are collected by investigating officer
during investigation justify the accusations against applicants in the
matter.
19. In the circumstances, in my opinion this Court cannot
conduct a mini trial at this stage to decide whether applicants are involved
in the alleged offence or not. At this stage, the validity of the lease
agreement cannot be decided by this Court. So also, the offences are of
serious nature. The applicants are admittedly owners of the hotel, and the
lease agreement is found to be disputed.
rkn
apl949.2024-+1.odt
In the circumstances, considering the fact that applicants
failed to prove that material produce by them is sterling and impeccable
quality. The assertions made by complainant are not rule out in its
entirety. As such, in my opinion, it is not a fit case for any interference by
invoking the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 read with Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023. Hence, applications stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J)
rkn
