JUDGMENT :

1. The two applications before me, invoke the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, “the Cr.P.C.”), seeking a relief of quashing of an order dated 22/03/2022, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court at Andheri, Mumbai, issuing process against them, for committing the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”).

Amongst the two, one of the Applicant-Salman is a well-known cine artist and is a part of the Indian film and entertainment industry, who claim to enjoy an excellent reputation, tremendous goodwill and extensive fan following in India and also on international platform.

The other Applicant, was working as a bodyguard of Salman Khan, at the relevant time, when the incident is alleged to have taken place.

2. The complainant is one Mr.Ashok Shyamlaal Pandey, a journalist and, according to him, had a tiff with the accused persons on the given date and which surfaced through his complaint, which is filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate against the two named persons and one unknown person on 25/06/2019.

The complainant narrate that he being a journalist, in routine course of his profession, was travelling in his car from Juhu to Kandivali, alongwith his cameraman, at around 4.40 p.m. on 24/04/2019. On his way, he noticed Accused No.1 riding a bicycle and Accused Nos.2 and 3 escorting him on bike. Being a journalist, he was tempted to ask Accused Nos.2 and 3, whether he can video shoot Accused No.1 and once consent was accorded, he started the recording. This, however, irked Accused No.1 and at his indication, Accused Nos.2 and 3 jumped on the car of the complainant and assaulted him. Even Accused No.1 participated in the assault and forcibly removed the mobile phone of the complainant, without his consent. The version in the complaint is exactly worded to the following effect :-

“3….the accused persons not only abused and misbehaved with the complainant but a also, assaulted, threatened to face the dire consequences.

4. The complainant further states that when the accused no.1 started snatching the mobile phone of the complainant, the complainant informed the accused No. 1 that he is a journalist by profession and he is recording his video with the previous consent of his bodyguards however, the accused no.1 stated that “Doesn’t Matter” and not only abused and assaulted the complainant but as also, forcibly taken away away/snatched the mobile phone of the complainant and went away from the said place. The complainant states that after snatching, the accused no.1 tried to break the mobile phone but as also, deleted so many applications and important Data of the complainant from the said mobile phone of the complainant.”

3. Worth it to mention that immediately on the incident taking place at around 4.40 p.m. on 24/04/2019, the complainant approached D.N.Nagar Police Station at 18.12 hours and informed about the alleged incident having taken place and the narration is to the effect that after the permission was granted to videograph, Accused No.1 looked back and signaled to his bodyguards, pursuant to which, both of them, who were riding on a motorcycle, rushed towards the complainant and his cameraman, who was sitting in the car, with an open window, was pushed. It is alleged that a verbal altercation ensued between the bodyguards and the occupants of the car and even Accused No.1 came back and he snatched the mobile from the car and moved ahead. While an attempt was being made to contact to the police on number 100, the two bodyguards came back and returned the mobile.

The complaint that was lodged with the police station, in short, was about the misbehavior of Accused No.1 and it was alleged that just because he is a celebrity, he cannot behave in an irresponsible fashion, as before videographying him, permission of his bodyguards was sought.

The complaint is received in D.N.Nagar Police Station on the very same day.

4.