- 1 - criwp1196.23.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 916 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1196 OF 2023 Anupkumar Krishnarao Ghorpade ….Petitioner VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others …..Respondents Mr. P. S. Magar, Advocate for the Petitioner 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, 354B, 452, 504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, charge-sheet filed therein, consequential Regular Criminal Case No. 466/2022 and order passed therein dated 14.06.2022 for issuance of process. 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 while she was sleeping in the house, at that time, her acquaintance Rishi Kapoor and Sanjay Zhawar came with two other unknown - 2 - criwp1196.23.odt persons. Allegation is made against Rishi of he committing such an act thereby outraging her modesty. Allegation is also made against 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 Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was appointed as a Court Commissioner for the purpose of execution of order passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad. It is his submission that the present report came to be lodged by way of false implication against the present Petitioner. According to him, this is a fit case covered by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335. 4. Learned APP opposed the said contention by referring to the First Information Report and statement of witness i.e. Vivek Chavan. It is submitted that as to whether it is a case of false implication or otherwise would be the subject matter to be decided by Trial Court after recording of evidence. It is further argued that this Court is - 3 - criwp1196.23.odt required to accept the First Information Report and statement of witness to be true and, from the said statement, prima facie, offence is made out against the Petitioner. 5. Perusal of the First Information Report does not indicate that there was any acquaintance of the informant with the present Petitioner. Similarly, witness Vivek who said to have come to the spot after hearing the cries of the informant also does not name the present Petitioner. Thus, there is no dispute about the fact that as per the case of the prosecution, the identity of the present Petitioner was not known to the informant as well as to the witness. 6. A specific query was raised to the learned APP as to whether any attempt was made by the investigating agency to conduct identification parade to establish identity of the Petitioner to be the one who was present at the spot at the relevant time. Learned APP, after going through the record, was unable to point out any such evidence collected during the course of investigation. This Court, therefore, finds substance in the contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner that on the basis of evidence on record it cannot be said that the present Petitioner was the same person who was - 4 - criwp1196.23.odt present at the spot on 13.01.2020 at 2.00 pm. Thus, even after evidence on record is accepted to be true, no offence is made out against the present Petitioner. 7. Petitioner is an Advocate. He was discharging his duty as Court Commissioner for execution/compliance of order passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal. Having regard to the said fact, there is a possibility that this could be a case of false implication of the Petitioner, being the informant aggrieved by execution of the order. Thus, the facts of the case clearly indicate that the case is squarely covered by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bhajanlal (supra). 8. In view of above discussion, Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘B’ and ‘E’. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) dyb