2025:BHC-AS:55414-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.568 OF 2024 Sanjay Pandurang Singhan ... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. … Respondents Mr. Viral Rathod with Ms. Shivani Shinde, for Applicant.

Mrs. R.S.Tendulkar, APP for State.

Mr. Sahil Choudhari, for Respondent No.2.

Mr. Devidas Pokale, Kasturba Marg Police Station present.

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.

RESERVED ON : 27 NOVEMBER 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 16 DECEMBER 2025

JUDGMENT :

1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Code’), the Applicant seeks quashing of the Criminal Proceedings being CC No.1171/PW/2024, arising out of C.R.No.213 of 2024 registered at Kasturba Marg Police Station, and the order of cognizance dated 5 March 2025 passed by the learned Magistrate, 68^th Court, Borivali, Mumbai, thereby issuing the process against the Applicant for an offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘the Penal Code’).

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts leading to this application can be stated as under :

2.1 The Applicant is a social worker and husband of a former Corporator affiliated to a police party. The first informant (R2) was also holding the office of the Deputy Chief of a local unit of the said political party. On 12 March 2023, a meeting of the workers of the said local unit was organized at Garden Hall, Near Phulpakharu Ground, Devipada, Borivali. After the meeting was over, the first informant (R2) was discussing the issues with Mrs. Madhuri Khanvilkar, a Coordinator of the local Unit of the said political party, in the presence of other workers. The first informant made a grievance that some office-bearers of the political party were calling the ladies for meetings, though their presence was not required, and, thereby sabotaging the meeting convened for the redevelopment of Rehman Chawl and Ganesh Compound SRA projects.

2.2 The first informant alleged, the applicant, whom she had known from before, overheard the said conversation between the first informant and Mrs. Khanvilkar, and charged on the person of the first informant, proclaimed that he had not taken any bribe from anybody and pushed the first informant back by touching her chest. The applicant allegedly exhorted that the first informant was required to be taught a lesson. The first informant felt that her modesty was outraged. Hence, the first informant lodged a report leading to the registration of C.R.No.213 of 2024 at Kasturba Marg Police Station.

2.3 Post completion of investigation, during the course of which the Investigation Officer recorded statements of as many as 59 witnesses, who were allegedly present in the said meeting, chargesheet came to be lodged against the applicant for an offence punishable under Section 354 of the Penal Code.

3. The Applicant has preferred this application asserting, inter alia, that the first informant had lodged a report with a view to wreck vengeance. The continuation of the prosecution constitutes abuse of the process of the Court as in the initial non-cognizable report lodged by the first informant, there was no whisper about the alleged act of outraging the modesty of the first informant (R2), attributed to the applicant. As a non-cognizable case for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 323 of the Penal Code was registered on 12 March 2024, the IO could not have registered FIR and proceeded with the investigation without obtaining the orders of the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Code, 1973. The initiation of the prosecution was clearly malafide, and, thus, resultant proceeding deserves to be quashed and set aside.

4. I have heard Mr. Rathod, learned Counsel for the Applicant, Mrs. Tendulkar, learned APP for the State, and Mr. Sahil Choudhary, learned Counsel for the first informant (R2), at some length. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have also perused the report u