IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that allegations in an FIR must be taken at face value at the preliminary stage, and the power to quash should be exercised sparingly, allowing the police to investigate cognizable offences.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

BHARAT P.DESHPANDE, J. - Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties matter is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

2. The petitioner who is an accused in FIR No.99 /2019 and the chargesheet bearing No.222/2019 registered as Criminal Case No. IPC 525/S/2019/D preferred the present petition for quashing of FIR and the chargesheet under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. r/w. Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Heard Mr M.B. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel with Mr A. Monteiro and Mr Abbasi Rehan Ahmad Nafees, Counsel for the petitioner, Mr Devidas J. Pangam, learned Advocate General with Mr Pravin Faldessai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr Arun Bras De Sa with Mr Alphy D'Souza and Mr Franco Cuburn Freddie Joseph, Counsel for respondent No.3.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Shri M.B. D'Costa for the petitioner would submit that the FIR as well as the statement of the victim is an entirely false and concocted story and allegations made therein are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent man could ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. He would submit that allegations against the accused are that he trespassed in the property in broad daylight at around 10.30 hours and allegedly molested the victim. He submits that no prudent person would commit such an offence except he is mentally imbalanced. He then submitted that such allegations are absurdly incorrect and made only to settle the things between the parties in view of the property dispute.

5. Mr D'Costa placed heavy reliance in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v/s. State of Maharashtra and others [2021 SCC Online SC 315] and more specifically paragraph No.17 wherein the case of Bhajan Lal is concerned. He then relied upon the case of State of Karnataka v/s. L. Muniswamy and others [(1977) 2 SCC 699], Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and other v/s. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others [(1988) 1 SCC 692] and finally on Laishram Premila Devi and others v/s State and others [2021 SCC OnLine Del 1323].

6. The learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned Counsel Mr Arun Bras De Sa appearing for respondent No.3 would submit that there is sufficient material which the prosecution had collected and since the chargesheet is filed, no case is made out exercising extraordinary jurisdiction.

7. We have considered the allegations made in the FIR and more specifically the statement of the victim recorded under Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C. as well as under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. before the J.M.F.C.

8. The complaint was lodged by the Manager of the said property/respondent No.3 on 17/04/2019 stating that the lady security staff posted on the gate duty of Club69, Calangute was instructed not to open the gate for any unauthorised person without the permission of the Security Chief. On 17/04/2019, at around 10.30 hours one person came and started knocking the security gate and continued to push it forcefully. When the victim tried to stop the said person from entering the property, he held her hand and pushed her forcibly away and started going inside. The victim/security guard ran behind him in order to restrain him but he again held her very forcefully and was not leaving her from his grip. In the meantime, some more staff members came to her rescue as she shouted. At that time the said person left her and went away. The name of the said person is also disclosed in the FIR i.e. the petitioner herein. The scene of offence panchanama was conducted on the same day as the FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Ss. 447 and 354 of IPC. Similarly, the statements of the witnesses were recorded which prima facie corroborated with the state of the complaint.

9. We have gone through the state of the victim and the one recorded before the Magistrate under Sec. 164 of CrPC. The victim has narrated the instance and