904-WP-4873-2021.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4873 OF 2021

Yusuf Afroz Yusha Hussaini Sayyed

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Maharashtra and Ors.

...Respondents

Mr.A.N.Kazi a/w Mr.Rizwan Khan, Advocates for the Petitioner.

Mr.K.V.Saste, APP for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &

S. M. MODAK, JJ.

DATE : 19^th OCTOBER 2022

P.C. :

1.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned APP for the State.

2.

By this petition, preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the

petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR, registered vide C.R. No. 555

of 2021, with the Mumbra Police Station, for the alleged offences

punishable under Sections 354, 354-D, 342 and 506 of the Indian

Penal Code.

Satish Sangar

1/4

SATISH

RAMCHANDRA

SANGAR

Digitally signed by

SATISH RAMCHANDRA

SANGAR

Date: 2022.10.21

14:40:23 +0530

904-WP-4873-2021.doc

3.

According to the respondent no.3 – original complainant,

the incident took place in the month of March-2021 at about

11.00 a.m., when she had gone to Amrut Nagar, Kausa, Mumbra

for purchasing vegetables. She has alleged that the petitioner

held her hand, disclosed his name and told her, that he was

residing at Wafa Tower, Sharifa Road, Amrut Nagar, Mumbra. He

also told her “tu mujhe bohot pasand hai, mere saath chale gi kya,

mai tumhe khush kar dunga”. The respondent no.3 has further

alleged, that whenever she went out to the market, the

petitioner met and stopped her and told her “tumhara mobile

number de do mujhe tumhe bahar le ke jana hai, sub kharcha mai

karta hu, ek baar mere saath chalo, agar tumhe bahar jane ko

sharam aati hai to mere ghar pe koi nahi hai tum kaho to ghar pe

jayege”. She has stated that she ignored the petitioner, however,

the petitioner followed her till her house. She has stated that as

she was scared, she did not disclose the incident to her family.

The respondent no.3 has further alleged that on 8^th June,

2021, at about 10.00 p.m., when she had gone to Tanwar Nagar,

Kausa, Mumbra, the petitioner was standing near a golden colour

Toyota car and that he told her ; “ye gaadi meri hai, chal ek ghante

Satish Sangar

2/4

904-WP-4873-2021.doc

me ghoom ke aate hai”. After uttering these words, the petitioner

opened the car door and tried to pull her inside the car and

touched her inappropriately and also threatened to kill her, if she

disclosed the incident to anyone.

4.

Prima facie, the allegations disclose the commission of an

offence as alleged by the respondent no.3–original complainant.

5.

Although, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that it is a false and fabricated FIR, and that, the present

complaint has been lodged malafidely, and that, no such

incident had taken place, the petitioner being a handicapped

person and as such, could not have pulled her in the car as

alleged, we are of the opinion, that this is the defence of the

petitioner, which will be considered by the trial Court, at the time

of trial.

6.

Considering what is stated aforesaid, this is not a fit case to

exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction nor inherent jurisdiction

for quashing the case.

7.

Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Satish Sangar

3/4

904-WP-4873-2021.doc

8.

Needless to state, that the observations made hereinabove,

are prima facie, made for the purpose of deciding the present

petition. The learned Judge to conduct the case on its own

merits, uninfluenced by the said observations.

9.

Petition stands disposed of.

S. M. MODAK, J.

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Satish Sangar

4/4