2022 Supreme(Bom) 1360
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Prasanna B. Varale, S.M. Modak, JJ.
Jeetendra Navlani - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Application No. 358 of 2021
Decided On : 12-04-2022
Mr. Abad Ponda, Senior Advocate, With Mr. Ravi Mishra, for the Appellant, Mrs. A.S. Pai, for the Respondent.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to quash proceedings if it finds that the initiation and continuity of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.
Headnote:
ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW - Quashment of FIR - IPC, 1860, Sections 332, 224, 225, 186, 189, 160, 504, 506, r/w 34 and Sections 66(1) and 85 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 - The court discussed the abuse of process of law and the action of the Respondent Authorities, and found that the initiation and continuity of proceedings against the Applicant would be an abuse of process of law. The court allowed the Criminal Application in terms of the amended prayer clause 'a'.
Fact of the Case:
The Applicant filed an Application seeking quashment of the first information report (FIR) and the charge-sheet filed against the Applicant for various offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The Applicant argued that the FIR and the proceedings arising out of it were an abuse of process of law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the initiation and continuity of proceedings against the Applicant would be an abuse of process of law and allowed the Criminal Application in terms of the amended prayer clause 'a'.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the alleged abuse of process of law, the nature of the incident, and the Applicant's cooperation with the investigating agency.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the initiation and continuity of proceedings against the Applicant would be an abuse of process of law, considering the facts and proposition of law presented.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Criminal Application in terms of the amended prayer clause 'a', thereby quashing the FIR and the charge-sheet filed against the Applicant.
JUDGMENT
Prasanna B. Varale, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, matter is taken up for hearing and disposal, at admission stage.
2. The present Application was filed initially, seeking prayer for quashment of the first information report bearing C.R. no. 233/2019 dated 2 3rd November, 2019 registered Gamdevi Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 332, 224, 225, 186, 189, 160, 504, 506, read with 34 of IPC and subsequently, by way of an amendment, the Applicant principally prayed as follows:
a. That this Hon'ble Court may pleased to quash the FIR No. 223 of 2019, registered at the Gamdevi Police Station and the charge-sheet bearing no. 216/PW/2021 filed in furtherance of the said FIR for the offences punishable u/s. 332, 224, 225, 186, 189, 160, 504, 506, r/w 34 and Sections 66(1) and 85 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 qua the Applicant.
3. Mr. Ponda, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Applicant vehemently submitted that the lodgment of the FIR and the proceedings arising out of the first information report against the Applicant, is an act of abuse of process of law and the facts of the present case squarely fall under 7th category as described by the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and the action of the Respondent Authorities, is clearly unsustainable.
4. Our attention firstly invited to the copy of first information report and the complainant's statement dated 2 3rd November, 2 019, the same is placed on record at page 19. Mr. Ponda submitted that the Applicant is having a good academic background on his credit and as an entrepreneur, he is carrying out multiple business activities including certain hotels and restaurants. Mr. Ponda further submitted that in the late hours of 23.11.2019, the Applicant was in his restaurant namely, Bombay Cartel and Dirty Buns Sobo along with his family members. The said day being the birthday of the Applicant, the Applicant was celebrating the same with his family members and some of his friends. Mr. Ponda further submitted that restaurant of Applicant is having a liquor license and though some of the guests were served with liquor, the Applicant had not consumed liquor.
5. Mr. Ponda further submitted that the complaint can be separated in two parts. In first part of the complaint, it is alleged that the Applicant kept open his restaurant beyond permissible time limit and in second part it is alleged that the Applicant resisted the action of the police officials who were discharging their duty and assisted one of an unknown accused to flee away from the restaurant. Mr. Ponda further submitted that though it is alleged in first part that the Applicant kept open his restaurant beyond permissible time limit, there was no such provisions relating to breach of any rules is invoked against the Applicant at the time of lodgment of the report and only offences under IPC are alleged against the Applicant.
6. It would be useful for our purposes to refer the relevant parts of the complaint. It is stated in the first part of statement of Shri Santosh Pawar who was discharging his duties at the relevant time as Police Naik on 23.11.2019 that he was discharging his duty as Peter Operator and was attached to patrolling squad. PI Dange was leading the squad. The squad was patrolling at about 00.15 hours and at 01.20 hours they approached the area namely, Bhulabhai Desai Road and entered in the building to verify whether the establishments namely, Bombay Cartel and Dirty Buns Sobo is closed or not. One Sachin Narsale, Manager of the said establishment met with PI Dange and informed that the establishment is closed and all the customers have already left. At that point of time, the Applicant came there and by introducing himself to PI Dange, he made request to permit him to run establishment beyond permitted hours. When PI Dange