[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Ravindra Nandkumar Gawai vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O., ... on 20 January, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:1063-DB
1 112.APL.488-2021.JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 488 OF 2021
Ravindra Nandkumar Gawai,
Aged about 55 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Mothi Umri, Akola,
Tq. and Dist. Akola. APPLICANT
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O. P.S. Ramdaspeth,
Akola, Tq. & Dist. Akola.
2. Neelima Shriram Pachkhande,
Aged about 26 years,
Occ. Household work,
R/o. Rahimapur Chincholi,
Tq. Anjangaon Surji, Dist. Amravati. NON-APPLICANTS
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. V.R. Deshpande, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. N.B. Jawade, APP for the Non-applicant No.1/State.
-----------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATED : 20th JANUARY, 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard.
2 112.APL.488-2021.JUDGMENT.odt
2. ADMIT. Heard finally by the consent of learned
Counsel for the respective parties.
3. The present Application is preferred by the
Applicant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with
Crime No.365/2017 registered with Police Station Ramdaspeth,
District Akola for the offence punishable under Section 376 of
the Indian Penal Code and consequent proceeding arising out of
the same bearing Sessions Trial No.43/2021 pending before the
District Judge-1 & Additional Sessions Judge, Akola.
4. The crime is registered on the basis of the report
lodged by the Non-applicant No.2 against the present Applicant
on an allegation that on 16.10.2017, when she had been to the
Court to attend the Court proceedings, at that time the present
Applicant approached her and disclosed her that he can help her
in the Court proceeding by arranging the meeting with the
Presiding Officer of that Court and on that count she was taken
by him and subjected her for forceful sexual assault in the car in
presence of her son and thereafter she brought at the Lodge. On
3 112.APL.488-2021.JUDGMENT.odt
the basis of the said report Police have registered the crime
against the present Applicant.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant who
submitted that, the present Applicant is a respectable person
and a social worker. As a part of social work he only assisted the
present Applicant who helped her in the Court proceeding but
taken disadvantage of the same he is implicated in the false
allegation by the Non-applicant No.2. The present Applicant is
awarded with various awards for his social work. He also
invited my attention towards the crime chart which shows that,
on the basis of the false and frivolous complaints lodged by the
present Non-applicant No.2 various respected persons are
prosecuted with the similar allegations by the Non-applicant
No.2. He further submitted that, against the present
Non-applicant No.2 various offences are registered against her
as to the extortion of money from various persons by alleging
sexual assault by them. Thus, considering the conduct of the
Non-applicant No.2, the story narrated by her appears to be
improbable and unacceptable and for all these reasons, the FIR
deserves to be quashed. He also invited my attention towards
4 112.APL.488-2021.JUDGMENT.odt
the statements of the Lodge owner and the Lodge Manager
which shows that despite the alleged incident the Non-applicant
No.2 went alongwith the present Applicant to the said Hotel,
also sufficient to show their names, and therefore, the
acquaintance and consensual relationship cannot be ruled out.
For above all these reasons as no prima facie case is made out,
the Application deserves to be allowed.
6. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said
contentions and submitted that the statement of the Informant
substantiated by the statements of Hotel Manager and Lodge
owner sufficiently shows the presence of the present Applicant
alongwith the Informant and the possibility of subjecting her for
the forceful sexual assault is not ruled out as there is no reason
for the Non-applicant No.2 to implicate him falsely. In view of
that, the Application deserves to be rejected.
7. On hearing both the sides and on perusal of the
entire investigation papers it reveals that, the allegations against
the present Applicant is that he approached the present
Non-applicant No.2 and told her that he can assist her in Court
proceeding and can arrange meeting between her and the
5 112.APL.488-2021.JUDGMENT.odt
Presiding Officer of that Court and on that pretext he took her
and subjected her for forceful sexual assault in the car in
presence of her son. During investigation, the Investigating
Officer has recorded the relevant statements of the witnesses. As
far as medical evidence is concerned, nothing transpires either
there was any injury on her genitals though she was
immediately examined by the Medical Officer. The Investigating
Officer has also collected the CDR reports and the crime chart,
which shows that the Non-applicant No.2 has filed similar
nature of complaints against various persons. The crime chart
shows that, 8 offences are registered by the Police authorities on
the basis of the report filed by the Non-applicant No.2 against
various persons. The nature of the allegations levelled in the
said crimes are also to blackmail the accused therein as the
reports were filed against them. The offences are also registered
against the present Non-applicant No.2 for extortion of money
by blackmailing various persons. Therefore, the submission of
the learned Counsel for the Applicant, is sustainable as the
record itself shows that the story narrated by the Non-applicant
No.2 appears to be improbable and unacceptable one. The
6 112.APL.488-2021.JUDGMENT.odt
conduct of the Non-applicant No.2 is also required to be taken
into consideration.
8. Learned Counsel for the Applicant placed reliance
on the decision of Mohd. Wajid & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors., (2023) 20 SCC 219, wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court has observed in para 36 to 39, which are reproduced as
under:
"36. At this stage, we would like to observe something
important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court
invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the
FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the
ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or
vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court
owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more
closely.
37. We say so because once the complainant decides to
proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for
wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure
that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the
necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that
the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that
they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for
the Court to look into the averments made in the
FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged
offence are disclosed or not.
38. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes
a duty to look into many other attending circumstances
emerging from the record of the case over and above the
averments and, if need be, with due care and
7 112.APL.488-2021.JUDGMENT.odt
circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court
while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict
itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take
into account the overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials
collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance
the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over
a period of time. It is in the background of such
circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes
importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking
vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.
39. In State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6
SCC 522, a two-Judge Bench of this Court elaborated on
the types of materials the High Court can assess to quash
an FIR. The Court drew a fine distinction between
consideration of materials that were tendered as evidence
and appreciation of such evidence. Only such material that
manifestly fails to prove the accusation in the FIR can be
considered for quashing an FIR. The Court held:-(SCC
pp.526-27, paras 5 -7)
"5. ...Authority of the court exists for advancement of
justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that
authority so as to produce injustice, the court has
power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of
the process of the court to allow any action which
would result in injustice and prevent promotion of
justice. In exercise of the powers court would be
justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that
initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the
process of court or quashing of these proceedings
would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no
offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may
examine the question of fact. When a complaint is
sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the
materials to assess what the complainant has alleged
and whether any offence is made out even if the
allegations are accepted in toto.
6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866,
this Court summarised some categories of cases where
inherent power can and should be exercised to quash
the proceedings : (SCC OnLine SC para 6)
8 112.APL.488-2021.JUDGMENT.odt
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal
bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of
sanction;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information
report or complaint taken at its face value and
accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence
alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence,
but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence
adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the
charge.
7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to
bear in mind the distinction between a case where
there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence
which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations
made, and a case where there is legal evidence which,
on appreciation, may or may not support the
accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not
ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the
evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a
reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be
sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge.
Judicial process, no doubt should not be an
instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment.
Court should be circumspect and judicious in
exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts
and circumstances into consideration before issuing
process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of
a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass
any person needlessly. At the same time the section is
not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-
circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden
death....."
(emphasis supplied)
9. In light of the above observations if the facts and
circumstances of the present case are taken into consideration
and the entire conduct and the various complaints lodged
9 112.APL.488-2021.JUDGMENT.odt
against the present Non-applicant No.2, there is some substance
in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Applicant that
the Applicant is falsely implicated. The statements of the Lodge
owner and the Lodge Manager also relevant which shows that
after the incident also the Non-applicant No.2 went alongwith
the present Applicant. Thus, the relationship which is of a
consensual in nature cannot be also ruled out. For all above
these terms as the occurrence of the incident itself is doubtful
and by applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court while quashing of the FIR is concerned, the Applicant has
made out a case for quashing of the FIR.
10. In view of the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors.,
1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, wherein following principles/
guidelines are laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court for
consideration of the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.:
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
10 112.APL.488-2021.JUDGMENT.odt
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which
no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is
a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge."
11. In light of the above said observations of the Hon'ble
Apex Court and by applying the same to the present case, the
Applicant has made out a case for quashing of the FIR as well as
the consequent proceeding. In view of that, the Application
11 112.APL.488-2021.JUDGMENT.odt
deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following order.
ORDER
i. Criminal Application is allowed.
ii. The First Information Report in connection with
Crime No. 365/2017 registered with Police Station
Ramdaspeth, District Akola for the offence
punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal
Code and consequent proceeding arising out of the
same bearing Sessions Trial No.43/2021 pending
before the District Judge-1 & Additional Sessions
Judge, Akola, are hereby quashed and set aside to
the extent of present Applicant.
12. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
S.D.Bhimte
Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 22/01/2026 18:52:25
