Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 1053
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S. GADKARI, RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
Kamlesh Mishra - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1535 of 2014
Decided On : 04-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ashok Kumar Dubey, Anil Kumar Pandey
For the Respondents: M.M. Deshmukh, Onkar A. Wable
The court held that allegations must be substantiated, and if inherently improbable or made with malicious intent, they can be quashed under Article 226.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 354-B and 506(II) - Quashing of an FIR - The allegations of disrobing lacked intention, and were influenced by prior disputes - The Court concluded that the accusations made were improbable, suggesting malice and ulterior motives behind the complaints. (Paras 6, 8, 9)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing Proceedings - The court can quash criminal proceedings when the allegations are frivolous or where proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides, or ill motives, as per Supreme Court's guidelines. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the FIR lodged against them by the respondent, alleging harassment and threats during a prior dispute over housing society elections. The incidents were claimed to be exaggerated and manipulative.
Findings of Court:
The court determined the FIR lacked substantive evidence of intentions to harm and was susceptible to malice stemming from ongoing disputes.
Issues: The primary issues revolved around the intent behind the actions alleged in the FIR and whether there was sufficient reason to maintain the proceedings against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to recognize and quash allegations that are inherently improbable and made with malicious intent, asserting that the petitioners did not exhibit intentions to outrage the complainant’s modesty.
Result: Petition allowed, FIR quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the petition. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. arguments opposing the petition. (Para 5) |
| 3. court's analysis of allegations. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. legal guidelines for quashing cases. (Para 9) |
| 5. conclusion and final order quashing the case. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT :
A.S. Gadkari, J.
1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are seeking quashing of C.C. No. 881/PW/2014, pending on the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 49th Court at Vikhroli, Mumbai, arising out of C.R. No. 89 of 2014, dated 1st March 2014, registered with Ghatkopar Police Station, Mumbai, under Sections 354-B and 506(II) read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC).
2. Heard Mr. Dubey, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, Mrs. Deshmukh, learned APP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Wable, learned Advocate for Respondent No.3. Perused entire record.
3. Record indicates that, by an Order dated 1st December 2014, Rule was issued and interim relief was granted in favour of the Petitioners.
4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts giving rise to the filing present Petition can be summarized as follows :-
4.1 Respondent No.3 has lodged the aforesaid crime against the Petitioners on 1st March 2014 at about 21:35 (9.35 p.m.), for an alleged incident, which occurred initially at about 8:30 a.m. and later at about 5:45 p.m. in the building of Petitioners and Respondent No.3, where both the parties were residing. It is stated that, Respondent No.3 is residing in Tenement No. A/504 in Ramdarshan Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Asalpha, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai. That, the husband of informant was an office bearer of the said Society. There were differences of opinion between Petitioner No.1 and husband of informant. The Petitioner No.1 therefore had filed civil and criminal cases against the husband of the informant, the Society and other office bearers. The Petitioner No.1 wanted to have office bearers of his choice on the Managing Committee of the Society and had threatened to lodge false complaints. There were non-cognizable cases registered by Respondent No.3 against the Petitioner No.1 and therefore, the Petitioner No.1 was having grudge against the informant and her husband.
4.2 That, on 1st March 2014 at about 8:30 a.m., when Respondent No.3 was on her way to bring flowers for performing pooja, near the lift of the building, she saw the Petitioners present. While Respondent No.3 was passing through the said way, it is alleged that, the Petitioners held her hands and the Petitioner No.2 put his hand on the mouth of Respondent No.3. That, the Petitioner No.1 pulled the ‘padar/pallu’ of her saree and tried to push her in the lift. At that time, both the Petitioners were staring at the Respondent No.3 angrily. In the said incident, the ‘padar/pallu’ of the saree of Respondent No.3 slipped, thereby causing embarrassing moment for her. In the said melee, Respondent No.3 got herself rescued from the clutches of the Petitioners and went to her house.
4.3 It is further alleged that, thereafter in the evening at about 5.45 p.m., the doorbell of the flat of Respondent No.3 rang. When she opened the door, she found the Petitioner No.1 infront of her door. By looking angrily, he threatened her that, whatever happened in the morning, if complained to the Police Station, he would give contract and kill her. The Respondent No.3 therefore closed the door and informed the said fact to her husband and thereafter lodged present crime. In this brief premise, the crime in question is registered.
5. Mrs. Deshmukh, learned A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2-State and Mr. Wable, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.3 vehemently opposed the Petition.
5.1 Mr. Wable, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.3 submitted that, the act of pulling the ‘padar/pallu’ of the saree of Respondent No.3, led to causing embarrassing situation for Respondent No.3, amounts to disrobing her and therefore, Section 35
