60. WP 671-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 671 OF 2026 Surendra Rampath Mishra .Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra .Respondent Mr. Parth Govilkar a/w. Mr. Rishi Bhuta, Ms. Ankita Bamboli, Ms. Neha Patil, Mr. Ujwal Gandhi, Mr. K. R. Shah, Mr. Prateek Dutta, Mr Pratham Jain, Ms. Tanvi Kondalkar, Ms. Maitrayee Ganediwala, Ms. Sakshi Jha & Ms. Vaishnavi Jhaveri, Advocates, for the Petitioner Ms. R. V. Newton, APP, for the Respondent – State Mr. Nitin D. Sawant, PSI, Bangur Nagar Police Station present CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : 22.09.2026 P. C. 1. Heard Mr. Govilkar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Palkar, learned APP for the Respondent – State. 2. By the present Petition, the Petitioner is seeking to quash and set aside the FIR bearing No. 170 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 308, 294, 114 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3, 8(1), 8(2), 8(4) of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants And Bar Rooms And Protection of Dignity of Women Act, 2016. The Petitioner is an Advocate. Anand 1 of 4 ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Digitally signed by ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Date: 2026.09.24 18:32:50 +0530 60. WP 671-2026.doc 3. The allegations in the impugned FIR and the material prima facie indicate that the Petitioner was a customer in the bar when the police conducted the raid. The same is prima facie evident from the FIR itself which is seen from page No. 99. Mr. Govilkar, learned Advocate would submit that apart from referring to the Petitioner as customer, there is no other material or incriminating evidence of whatsoever nature in the impugned FIR or Charge-sheet to make out any case against the Petitioner for the offences for which he is charged. He would submit that there is no material to show that the Petitioner has behaved in any indecent manner or otherwise committed the alleged crime. He would, therefore, submit that prosecuting the Petitioner would amount to an abuse of the legal process of law. 4. Ms. Newton, learned APP would, however, submit that the allegations against the Petitioner in the present crime prima facie seems to be that he was a customer in the FIR. However, she would submit that since this is a case of 2017, the trial may have commenced that she does not know the status of the trial. The trial case before the trial Court qua the Petitioner is for committal. After perusing the record with the able assistance of the learned Advocates, I see that there are no allegations against the Petitioner before me that he having indulged in an indecent act in the bar and restaurant. Save and except to state Anand 2 of 4 60. WP 671-2026.doc that he was present in the bar sipping Thums Up in view of the fact that no specific overt act is attributed to the Petitioner. The Petitioner’s presence in the bar primarily as a customer, I am inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned Advocates. The Petition stands allowed. 5. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 conferred inherent powers on High Courts to pass such orders as are justified to give effect to any order in the Court, prevent abuse of process of any Court or secure the ends of justice. In the BNSS this provision stands incorporated with Section 528 which substantially reproduces the language and intent of Section 482 of the CRPC, 1973 High Courts invoke this provision to step in where cases have been instituted with malafide motives or to harass the accused person thereby avoiding procedural harassment. It empowers Court to dismiss FIRs or criminal proceedings if there is no prima facie case or evidence against the accused person/s or if orders are made in violation of the principles of natural justice. The exercise of such powers under Section 482 of CRPC and now Section 528 of BNSS remains discretionary and varies from case to case. 6. In State of Harayana vs Bhajan Lal1 the Supreme Court laid down model categories and guidelines in paragraph No. 102 of the said 1 1992 AIR 604 Anand 3 of 4 60. WP 671-2026.doc judgment in which the FIRs can be quashed. The Supreme Court has further asserted that power under Section 482 is an acknowledgment of "powers inherent" and not the source of powers additional. It has held that even non compoundable offences can be quashed where necessary. It has held that High Courts have to decide whether the prosecution of an offence would further or be against the interest of justice. It is also held that grievous offences such as murder, rape, and dacoity cannot ordinarily be quashed even after settlement because they involve societal implication. 7. In view of the above matter, the present Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘b’ which read thus:- “b) That in case the cognizance order is quashed then the charge sheet bearing no. 4637/PW/2019 and non bailable warrants issued on 31/01/2020, 27/11/2021 and 19/12/2025 pending on the files of 68th Court JMFC Borivali be quashed against the Petitioner.” 8. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) Anand 4 of 4