Sandeep Dattaram Salgaonkar vs State of Goa

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Bom) 1767

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M.S.Sonak, Bharat P.Deshpande, JJ.
Sandeep Dattaram Salgaonkar - Appellant
Versus
State of Goa - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 64 of 2021
Decided On : 29-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
S.G.Desai, Advocate, Tejas Rane, Advocate, S.G.Bhobe, Advocate, Deepak Gaonkar, Advocate, Gaurish Agni, Advocate, Kissan Kuvlekar, Advocate, Vibhav Amonkar, Advocate, S.Shetye, Advocate

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 323, 504, and 353 - Criminal Writ Petitions filed to quash FIRs against the appellant and counter-complaints - Allegations arose during a site inspection regarding illegal constructions, with claims of assault and obstruction - Court found the FIR against the appellant to be frivolous, lacking material to substantiate the charges under IPC Sections 323, 504, and 353, hence quashed it - The competing allegations from the Panchayat members were deemed a counterblast without merit - Issues of legitimate representation of clients and proper grounds for police protection were highlighted. (Paras 52, 66)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, a practicing Advocate, was involved in representing a client regarding illegal constructions at Salvador do Mundo, Goa. He faced allegations of obstructing public servants and assaulting the Sarpanch and Secretary during their official duty, claims he denied.

Findings of Court:
The court found the allegations against the appellant to be inherently improbable and lacking in merits, hence quashing the FIR against him, while dismissing the complaints against the Panchayat members.

Issues: The main issues included the examination of counter-complaints and whether the FIR against the appellant substantiates any criminal offence as per IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that complaints must disclose cognizable offences; mere assertions of obstruction without detail are insufficient to establish any crime, especially when conflicting evidence and circumstances exist.

Result: Criminal Writ Petition No. 20 of 2019 allowed; FIR quashed; Petitions No. 64 and 65 of 2021 dismissed.

Table of Content
1. initiation of multiple petitions in response to intertwined firs. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. overview of claims and incidents leading to the complaints. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. contrasting views on the validity of complaints and charges. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. court's reluctance to involve cbi based on incident severity. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. clarification of protocols for fir quashing. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
6. assessment of external circumstances leading to complaint's filing. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
7. discrepancies in evidentiary claims impacting case credibility. (Para 32 , 33 , 34)
8. legal representation rights and their implications. (Para 35 , 36 , 37)
9. arguments on improbabilities and burden of misconduct proof. (Para 38 , 39 , 40)
10. affirmation of abuse of process as grounds for legal relief. (Para 50 , 51 , 52)
11. final rulings on petitions concerning fir validity. (Para 54 , 55)
12. conclusive disposition of legal challenges and petitions. (Para 68 , 69)

JUDGMENT/ORDER

BHARAT P.DESHPANDE,J. - Criminal Writ Petition Nos.64 of 2021 and 65 of 2021 are taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself with Criminal Writ Petition No.20 of 2019 wherein Rule was issued, as these petitions are filed for quashing of two FIRs' i.e. a complaint and the counter-complaint filed against each other in connection with the alleged incident which took place on 27/09/2018 at Gaunswado, Salvador do Mundo, Bardez, Goa.

2. Criminal Writ Petition No.20 of 2019 is filed by the petitioner, who is a practising Advocate, thereby challenging the FIR vide Crime No.129 of 2018 registered at Porvorim Police Station against him for the offences punishable under Sec. 353, 504 and 323 of IPC on the complaint filed by Mr Avinash Palni, the Secretary of Village Panchayat Salvador do Mundo, alleging that during the inspection, the petitioner obstructed the Secretary and the Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat in conducting the inspection, abused them, pushed them and thereby committing the offence under Sec. 353, 323 and 504 of IPC.

3. Criminal Writ Petition No.64 of 2021 is filed by Mr Sandeep Salgaonkar, the Sarpanch of village Salvador do Mundo praying to quash the FIR No.130/2018 registered at Porvorim Police Station at the instance of respondent No.3 (Petitioner in Writ Petition No.20 of 2019) for the offences punishable under Sec. 143, 147, 504, 323, 506(II) r/w. 149 of IPC.

4. Criminal Writ Petition No. 65 of 2021 is filed by one Raees Ahmed Khan challenging the FIR No.130 of 2018 registered with Porvorim Police Station at the instance of respondent No.3 (Petitioner in Writ Petition No.20 of 2019), for the offences punishable under Sec. 143, 147, 323, 504, 506(II) r/w 149 of IPC.

5. Thus, Writ Petition Nos.64 of 2021 and 65 of 2021 are challenging the same FIR No.130 of 2108 along with the charge sheet in Criminal Case No.327/S/2019 pending on the file of JMFC, Mapusa.

6. Though we have heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, we first propose to consider submissions advanced in Criminal Writ Petition No.20 of 2019.

7. Heard Mr Deepak Gaonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr S.G. Bhobe, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr S.G. Desai, learned Senior Counsel with Mr Tejas Rane, learned Counsel for respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.64 of 2021 and 65 of 2021 and Mr S.G. Desai, learned Senior Counsel with Mr Tejas Rane, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr S.G. Bhobe, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1, Mr Gaurish Agni with Mr Kissan Kuvlekar, learned Counsel for respondent No.2, Mr Deepak Gaonkar, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 and Mr Vibhav Amonkar with Mr S. Shetye, Counsel for respondent No.7 in Criminal Writ Petition No.20 of 2019

8. Learned Senior Counsel Mr Desai vehemently submitted that the petitioner (in Criminal Writ Petition No.20 of 2019) is a practising Advocate at Mumbai and he was engaged by his client