31.WP.1420.2020.doc Ajay IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1420 OF 2020 Mahesh Manohar Pawar .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Anees R. Deshpande, Advocates for Petitioner.  Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for Respondent – State.  Mr. Rahul Sarda, Advocate for Respondent No.2 appointed through legal aid. ......…........… CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : AUGUST 31, 2026. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Deshpande, learned Advocate for Petitioner, Ms. Newton, learned APP for Respondent – State and Mr. Sarda learned Advocate for Respondent No.2. 2. Present Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procdure, 1973 seeking to quash and set aside First Information Report No.568 of 2010 dated 10.10.2010 registered at Vile Parle Police Station under Sections 323, 353, 504, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 85(1) and (2) of Maharashtra Prohibition Act against Petitioner. Copy of FIR No. 568 of 2010 is appended at Exhibit ‘A’ at page No.11 of the Petition. 3. On 09.10.2010, at 10:20 p.m. Petitioner with his two friends was standing in front of the Satkar Hotel, Hanuman Road, Vile Parle 1 of 10 31.WP.1420.2020.doc (East) when one stranger alighted from a rickshaw bearing number MH-02-Z-6171 and started assaulting the driver - Hemraj Bansaraj Singh Chavan i.e. Respondent No.2. Petitioner and his two friends intervened to stop the fight, however at that time two other persons in plain clothes who identified themselves as Police personnel arrived on motorcycle and made inquiries regarding the incident. Petitioner introduced himself as a lawyer and along with his two friends questioned the authority of the said Police personnel to intervene and ask them explanation. It is alleged in the complaint by Respondent No.2 that Petitioner and his friends assaulted and prevented the Police personnel from discharging their official duty. 3.1. It is Petitioner’s case that he and his two friends and Respondent No.2 were then taken to V.N. Desai Hospital where no tests were conducted or their blood sample was taken. It is Petitioner’s case that the said two Police personnel namely, Milind Manohar Desai, API and Sachin Mohan Bongane, Constable, forced Respondent No.2 to lodge a false complaint against Petitioner and the other two for causing hurt and deterring a government servant from carrying out his duties. Pursuant thereto, FIR was registered. On 11.10.2010, Petitioner and others were produced before Holiday Court and remanded to Police custody. On 12.10.2010 Petitioner was released on bail. On 28.07.2015 i.e. nearly five years later chargesheet was filed. Copy of chargesheet is appended at Exhibit ‘B’ - page No.16 of the Petition. I 2 of 10 31.WP.1420.2020.doc have perused the same. 4. Mr. Deshpande, learned advocate for Petitioner would submit that in so far as charge under Section 353 of IPC is concerned, the Police personnel who were allegedly prevented from performing duty ought to have have lodged the complaint themselves. He would submit that in the instant case, concerned Police personnel have been cited as witnesses. He would submit that no medical examination of Respondent No.2 was conducted and hence no medical certificate is available. 4.1. He would submit that the Police personnel pressurized Respondent No.2 to register the complaint. He would submit that alcohol examination certificate indicated 0.039% percent of ethyl alcohol present in his blood which was negligible. He would submit that details regarding abuses hurled by Petitioner or details of disorderly behaviour under Section 85(1) of Maharashtra Prohibition Act which are necessary for adjudication, are not provided. In support of Petitioner’s case he would refer to and rely upon the decision of this Court given at the Aurangabad Bench in the case of Ashok Hari Chavan Vs. The State of Maharashtra1 and contend that it would be necessary to enlighten the Court as to what sort of abuses were uttered by the accused by giving details of the abuses and it would be for the Court to determine whether those abuses could be termed as verging on, 1 2001 ALL MR (Cri) 1704, (Criminal Revision Application No.164/1992) 3 of 10 31.WP.1420.2020.doc disorderly behaviour. He would submit that there were no independent witnesses to corroborate the version of Respondent No.2. 4.2. He would submit that the incident took place in the year 2010 and chargesheet is filed in the year 2015, that trial is pending for recording of evidencec from 2015 till 2023 and was ultimately stayed on 18.10.2023. He would submit that Petitioner has no antecedents and has suffered heavy embarrassment and defamation for past 16 years along with prejudice to his professional practice. He would submit that allegations made out against Petitioner do not prima facie constitute any offence. Hence, in view of aforesaid submissions he prays that the chargesheet and all proceedings be quashed and set aside. 5. Mr. Sarda, learned advocate for Respondent No.2 appointed through the legal aid would submit that the narration of events by the Petitioner is contrary to the record of the case as per the Complaint, FIR and chargesheet. He would submit that according to statement of Complainant i.e. Respondent No.2, Petitioner while being in an intoxicated state of affairs along with a woman boarded the auto- rickshaw of Respondent No.2. He would submit that an argument turned into a quarrel between Petitioner and Respondent No.2 over alleged indecent conduct of Petitioner and the woman while travelling in the auto-rickshaw. He would submit that when Petitioner alighted at 4 of 10 31.WP.1420.2020.doc his destination near Satkar Hotel, he along with his two accomplices while hurling abuses started beating Respondent No.2 with fists and kicks over the quarrel. 5.1. He would submit that the two Police personnel on patrolling duty who intervened but they were also assaulted by Petitioner and prevented from discharging their duty. He would submit that Petitioner also threatened them by stating that he was an Advocate. Furthermore, he would submit that due to disorderly conduct of Petitioner, a Police van was called to the crime scene which took all four of them viz., Petitioner, his two friends and Respondent No.2 to the Police Station and thereafter for medical examination. 5.2. He would submit that therefore in view of stark contrast between the version of events as narrated by Petitioner in the Petition and the record of the case, the truth ought to be unearthed during trial only. He would submit that Petitioner’s contention that no medical tests were conducted or blood samples were taken is false. He would submit that after duly conducting Petitioner’s blood sample examination it was revealed that his blood contained 39 mg. alcohol in 100 cc. 5.3. He would submit that Petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and hence, deserves no discretionary relief from this Court. He would submit that Petition raises disputed 5 of 10 31.WP.1420.2020.doc questions of fact which ought to be decided during trial and that quashing of FIR would scuttle the trial. He would submit that version of facts narrated by Petitioner nowhere explains as to why he was implicated in the case when he claims to have only tried to pacify the situation. He would submit that the FIR, the statements of witnesses and the blood report of Petitioner belie his version of events narrated in the Petition. 5.4. He would refer to and rely upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court in support of his submissions: (i) S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu V. Jagannath2, (ii) State of Karnataka V. M. Devendrappa & Anr.3 Moreover, he would submit that quashing a FIR on the ground that incident took place in the year 2010 and remained pending since long period, is untenable in law. He would submit that Petitioner is not suffering any incarceration, further his life and liberty are not curtailed in any manner and therefore, Petitioner being accused of aforementioned offences cannot avoid trial and the consequences thereof. He would submit that Petitioner cannot avoid trial by seeking quashing of charges especially when there is prima facie material on record which shows that his approach was malafide, therefore he would submit that present Petition be dismissed. 2 1994 AIR 853 3 (2003) 3 SCC 89 6 of 10 31.WP.1420.2020.doc 6. Ms. Newton, learned APP for Respondent No.1 - State would vehemently oppose the present Petition and submit that version of facts narrated by the Petitioner is contradictory to the record of the case. She would submit that on perusal of chargesheet it is revealed that Petitioner being an Advocate by profession has approached this Court with malafide intent and unclean hands. She would adopt the arguments advanced by Mr. Sarda which are not delineated herein for brevity and persuade this Court that Petition be dismissed for the reasons in foregoing paragraphs. 7. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and with their able assistance, perused the record of the case. Submissions made by learned Advocates at the bar have received due consideration of the Court. 8. At the outset it is clearly seen that there are two versions of events narrated by both parties, however apart from that it is observed that there are no independent witnesses, further no single eye witness is cited to support the case of Complainant - Respondent No.2. It is seen that neither CCTV footage nor medical report has been annexed to the chargesheet so as to reveal any kind of bodily injury to Respondent No.2. It is observed that after the incident, all four persons were taken to V.N. Desai Hospital for medical examination. However it is seen that only examination reports of Petitioner and his two friends 7 of 10 31.WP.1420.2020.doc are annexed hereto at page Nos.32 to 37 showing alcohol examination certificate. 9. It is seen that no medical examination report of Respondent No.2 has been provided though he was taken to the same hospital along with other three persons. Furthermore, it is seen that no medical report has been provided to show injuries suffered by Respondent No.2 who was alleged to have been beaten up by three persons with fists and kick blows so as to attract Section 323 of IPC. Neither does the FIR disclose any specific abuses hurled at Respondent No.2 by the Petitioner which are necessary for adjudication. 10. Moreover, it is seen that examination report which shows that Petitioner was under intoxication does not prima facie accuse him of committing the offences registered under IPC. It is seen that as per the Complainant’s narration in FIR, the alleged woman who was travelling with Petitioner in Respondent No.2’s auto-rickshaw was neither examined nor was her statement recorded. It is seen that no explanation regarding disorderly behviour of Petitioner while being drunk has been given in the FIR or in the statements on record. The charge of the prosecution that Petitioner assaulted the two Police personnel falls completely short of any proof. There has to be prima facie evidence of the same to be believed. It merely cannot be believed on the version of the Complainant. 8 of 10 31.WP.1420.2020.doc 11. On perusal of record of the case it is seen that present matter has been pending for a very long time due to non-cooperation of Respondent No.2 who is non-traceable even after issuing paper publication. It is seen that in order to attract the aforementioned offfences with which Petitioner is charged, it was necessary to provide a detailed explanation of the alleged wrongful act committed by the Petitioner along with his two friends and place corroborative evidence. It is seen that in absence of material on record to make out a case against the Petitioner, matter was pending for recording of evidence since 2015. Therefore, prima facie there is no material at all placed by prosecution even to suggest that the Petitioner committed any of the alleged offenses with which he is charged. 12. Hence, in view of the aforementioned findings and observations, FIR No. 568 of 2010 along with Sessions Case No.87/2021 pending on file of 7th Sessions Court at Dindoshi, Goregaon, against Petitioner, I am inclined to accept the submissions of Mr. Deshpande and determine the present Petition affirmatively. 13. Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads thus:- a. Call for the record and proceedings pertaining to F.I.R No.568/2010 u/s, 323, 353, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. and section 85(1), (2) of the Mumbai Prohibition Act registered at Vile Parle Police station, Mumbai and charge-sheet dated 28/07/2015 with C.C.No.1550/PW/15 filed by the Respondent in the Sessions Case No.87/2021 pending before Court room no.7, Dindoshi, Goregaon, 9 of 10 31.WP.1420.2020.doc Mumbai, in the Court of Ld. C. M. 65th Court, Andheri, Mumbai, and after examining the legality, validity and propriety thereof, quash and set side the same qua the Petitioner and for that purpose issue appropriate writ, order or direction. 14. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 10 of 10 HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Digitally signed by HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Date: 2026.08.31 12:13:23 +0530