- 1 - criwp1391.20.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 916 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1391 OF 2020 1. Rishi Rajesh Kapoor 2. Sanjay Bansantilal Zhawar .....Petitioners VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others .....Respondents Mr. J. N. Singh, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S. P. Joshi, APP for the State. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2026. PER COURT : 1. This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeks quashment of the First Information Report in Crime No. 30/2020 registered with MIDC Police Station, Tq. & District Jalgaon, for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 452 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Regular Criminal Case No. 466/2022 pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon, for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-B, 504. 506, 452 and 34 of Indian penal Code. 2. First informant, a lady, lodged report alleging with regard to the incident occurred on 13.01.2020 at about 2.00 pm. She claimed that - 2 - criwp1391.20.odt while she was sleeping in the house, at that time, present Petitioners came with two other unknown persons. Allegation is made against Petitioner Rishi of he committing such an act thereby outraging her modesty. Allegation is also made against Petitioner Sanjay of he abusing her. She also claims that two known persons also abused her. According to her, when she raised shouts, Vivek Chavan came. Thereafter all four persons left the said place. On the basis of these allegations, offence came to be registered. 3. Learned Counsel for Petitioners submits that there are disputes between Petitioner No. 1 Rishi and informant in respect of the subject property. According to him, Petitioner No. 1 had obtained an order against the informant and the same was got executed through co- accused. It is his submission that in such circumstances, definitely there was reason for the informant to falsely implicate the present Petitioners. By referring to the First Information Report, it is his submission that the allegations therein are practically not possible to be accepted. According to him, there is inconsistency in the statements of informant and eye witness Vivek. To support his submissions, he placed reliance on following judgments : (i) Shafiya Khan Alias Shakuntala Prajapati vs. State of - 3 - criwp1391.20.odt Uttar Pradesh and another, (2022) 4 Supreme Court Cases 549 (ii) Anukul Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2060 (iii) Usha Chakraborty and another vs. State of West Bengal & another, (2023) 15 Supreme Court Cases 135 (iv) Anita Mayura and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another, 2026 INSC 806 4. Learned APP opposed the said contention by referring to the allegations against the present Petitioners. It is his submission that the names of the present Petitioners so also the acts committed by them are specifically set out in the First Information Report and the same are corroborated by the statement of witness Vivek. According to him, it is only in case where the Court finds that the material collected during the course of investigation is not sufficient to make out any offence against the Petitioner, the extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised. According to him, it will be for the Trial Court, on the basis of evidence recorded before it, to decide as to whether there would be conviction or acquittal of the Petitioners. - 4 - criwp1391.20.odt 5. At the outset, it would be useful to refer to judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 SCC (SUPP) 1 335, which gives guidelines for the decision of quashment of criminal proceedings. Relevant observations made therein read thus : “ 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. - 5 - criwp1391.20.odt (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code of the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. - 6 - criwp1391.20.odt (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the abovereferred case clearly indicate that the extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the Court provided that if entire case of prosecution is accepted to be true, no offence is made out. No doubt, it is also open for the Court to exercise said powers in case it is found that the report lodged is malafide and by way of vengeance against the Petitioners. 6. Here in this case, no doubt, there are disputes between Petitioner No. 1 and the informant. The question, however, remains for determination is as to whether the incident as alleged to have occurred on 13.01.2020 at 2.00 pm has infact occurred or not. Needless to say that the said issue requires evidence which could be led only before the Trial Court. At this stage, it is not open for this Court to discard said evidence. Even if it is accepted for the sake of - 7 - criwp1391.20.odt arguments that there could be possibility of First Information Report being lodged owing to the disputes between the informant and Petitioner No. 1, still in considered view of this Court, this issue would require evidence. It is not necessary for this Court to ascertain as to whether the case against the Petitioners would result into acquittal or conviction. Suffice it to say that if the statements of informant as well as witness are accepted to be correct, prima facie, offence is made out against the present Petitioners. As such, this not a case to exercise extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In the result, Petition stands rejected. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) dyb