[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Jhanvi Mehta vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 25 March, 2026
Digitally signed
by LAXMIKANT
2026:BHC-AS:14290-DB
LAXMIKANT GOPAL
GOPAL CHANDAN
CHANDAN Date: (906) WP-1171.25.DOCX
2026.03.25
21:03:35 +0530
lgc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1171 OF 2025
Jhanvi Mehta ]
Age : 24 years, Occ : Student ]
Having her address at : 181, Sector 7, ]
Gurugram - 122001, Haryana ]...Petitioner.
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra ]
Through N. M. Joshi Marg ]
Police Station, Mumbai ]
]
2] Rashmi Sharad Halrankar ]
Sakshi Park, No.2/D/201, ]
Malewadi Stop, Matheran Road ]
New Panvel, N. M. Joshi Marg, ]
Brihanmumbai City, Mumbai ]..Respondents
______________________________________________________
Mr.Pratik Thakkar a/w Mr. Sourabh Arora, Mr. Vikrant Singh
Negi and Adv. Ekta Tyagi i/by DSK Legal for the Petitioner.
Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent/State.
PSI Anita K Sul, N.M.Joshi Marg Police Station, present.
______________________________________________________
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATED : 25 March 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Pratik Thakkar, learned Advocate for the
Petitioner and Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, learned APP for the
Respondent/State.
(906) WP-1171.25.DOCX
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of
the parties heard finally.
3. This Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973), seeking to quash the First
Information Report bearing C.R. No.1064 of 2022 dated
26.11.2022, registered with N. M. Joshi Marg Police Station,
Mumbai (hereafter "Impugned FIR"), for the offences
punishable under Sections 285 & 336 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter "IPC"), and Sections 4 7,
21, 4A & 21A of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products
(Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and
Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003
(hereafter 'COTPA"), and the charge-sheet, which is registered
as Criminal Case No.4140/PS/2023, pending before the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, 13th Court, Bhoiwada at
Sewree, Mumbai, arising out of the impugned FIR.
4. The prosecution's case is that on 22.03.2020, the
Enforcement Cell of the Crime Branch in Mumbai received
confidential information indicating that objectionable
activities were taking place at an establishment named
"Epitome Global Dining and Bar" located at Mathuranandan
Das Mill Compound, N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel (West),
Mumbai. Upon receiving this information, the Police
conducted a raid. The allegations are that a hookah
(906) WP-1171.25.DOCX
containing tobacco was being served at the establishment. It is
also alleged that during the raid, about 120 persons, including
management, staff, owners, and approximately 90 customers,
were detained. The Petitioner was among these customers. A
Panchanama was conducted, and objectionable items were
found, leading to the registration of the impugned FIR.
5. Mr. Pratik Thakkar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner,
submits that the allegations against the Petitioner pertain to
her presence at the said establishment as "customer". He
argues that, apart from referring to the Petitioner as
"customer" in the impugned FIR, there is no other allegation
or material to establish the ingredients of the offences alleged
against the Petitioner in the impugned FIR or the charge-
sheet. He, therefore, seeks the Court's indulgence to prevent
abuse of process of law.
6. Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, learned APP for the
Respondent/State, submits that the Petitioner is referred to as
the "customer" in the impugned FIR and charge-sheet. She
fairly submits that, apart from this reference, there is no other
material or evidence implicating the Petitioner in the crime.
7. Perused the records with the assistance of the learned
Advocates for the parties.
8. As submitted by Mr. Pratik Thakkar, learned Advocate
for the Petitioner, and confirmed by Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar,
learned APP for the Respondent/State, the Petitioner is
(906) WP-1171.25.DOCX
referred to as "customer" who was present at the
establishment during the raid conducted by the Enforcement
Cell, Crime Branch. The records before me do not indicate any
other material collected by the Investigating Agency that even
prima facie shows the ingredients of the offences punishable
under the IPC, let alone any offences under the COTPA, as
against the Petitioner. Mere presence of the Petitioner at the
establishment without any material is not sufficient to attract
the offences mentioned in the impugned FIR and the charge-
sheet.
9. In the wake of the above, this Petition is allowed.
Consequently, the impugned FIR bearing C.R.No.1064 of 2022
and the charge-sheet arising out of the impugned FIR are
quashed against the Petitioner herein.
10. Rule made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
