Bombay High Court
MUKESH WAGATLAL SIYAALversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The prosecution’s case was found prima facie false and unsupported by independent evidence, warranting the quashing of the FIR and charge‑sheet.
Summary
The applicant, a jeweller, challenged an FIR and charge‑sheet filed under Sections 353, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code alleging criminal intimidation, wrongful confinement and criminal intimidation. He claimed that a police constable had illegally seized his driving licence, demanded a bribe, and later fabricated the case against him. The court examined the complainant’s statement, the lack of independent eyewitness testimony, and the absence of CCTV footage, finding the prosecution’s version implausible and unsupported. It noted that the constable had no authority to confiscate the licence and that the alleged assault on the constable was not credibly proved. Consequently, the court quashed the FIR and charge‑sheet and ordered the return of the applicant’s licence. The application was allowed and disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR and charge‑sheet under Sections 353, 504 and 506 IPC can be quashed on the ground of a fabricated case.
- Whether the absence of independent witness statements and CCTV footage justifies quashing the prosecution’s case.
- Whether a police constable has the power to confiscate a driving licence for non‑use of a helmet.
- Whether the applicant’s alleged conduct amounts to criminal intimidation under the IPC.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 353, 504, 506
Subjects
- Criminal intimidation
- Police misconduct
- Quash of FIR
- Section 353 IPC
- Section 504 IPC
- Section 506 IPC
- Evidence
- Witness credibility
- License confiscation
- Abuse of power
Judgment
52.Cri.APL.612.2018.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 612 OF 2018
Mr. Mukesh W. Siyal .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Manish N. Jain i/by S. M. Jain Associates, Advocates for
Applicant.
Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
Mr. D. P. Mane, PSI, Kasturba Marg Police Station present in Court.
................…
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 10, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Jain, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms.
Newton, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
2. Applicant seeks quashing of FIR and chargesheet bearing
C.C. No.1012/PW/2018 in FIR No.76 of 2018 filed under Sections 353,
504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered with Kasturba
Marg Police Station, Borivali East. Respondent No.2 – Complainant is a
Police constable. Applicant has a jewellery business at Chembur in the
name of Ambika Jewellers.
3. Applicant was intercepted on 04.02.2018 at 07:00 pm on
Dattapada road, Borivali East where Applicant had halted his
motorcycle in front of the public toilet to answer nature call.
Respondent No.2 – Complainant asked Applicant to produce vehicle
1 of 6
52.Cri.APL.612.2018.doc
papers along with license and after checking the same returned back
the papers without license and left the incident spot.
4. It is the prosecution case as per Complainant’s statement that
Applicant misbehaved with the Complainant, held his shirt collar,
threatened and intimidated him under fear of assault. Contrary to this,
it is Applicant’s case that Complainant a constable with Mumbai Police
did not return his license and threatened Applicant of foisting a
criminal case against him for driving the motorcycle without helmet
and instead called upon Applicant to either pay Rs.500/- towards
penalty for getting back the license or pay Rs.300/- as bribe for
resolving the entire issue.
5. According to Applicant an altercation occurred on the road in
the public place and when Applicant attempted to contact and issue
message to the Police Commissioner and higher-ups of the
Complainant, it angered him most. Applicant has further stated that he
went to the Police Station and attempted to lodge an NC against the
Complainant which was initially taken down by one constable called
Smt. Gavit, but she was not allowed to do so by the Complainant and
another constable called Prashant Kathane and Applicant was detained
in the Police Station from 8:00 pm to 2:00 am.
6. I have perused the entire record and material which is placed
before Court and argued by learned Advocate for Applicant. It is prima
2 of 6
52.Cri.APL.612.2018.doc
facie seen that Applicant has recorded the entire incident on his mobile
phone camera with regard to the Complainant having not returned his
license back to him and about the demand of Rs.300/- to be paid to
him for getting back the license. Further transcript of the WhatsApp
conversation and messages exchanged by the Complainant with the
Police Officers and the higher-ups with regard to the incident in
question and what precisely transpired in the Police Station, prima
facie, show that the Complainant and his colleagues have been
instrumental in foisting a false case of criminal intimidation against the
Applicant.
7. The Statement of the Complainant - Ajay Dinkar Pawar is
appended at a page No.21 of application and on reading the same it is
prima facie unbelievable that in the facts and circumstances narrated
therein, Applicant will hold the shirt collar of the Complainant who is a
Police constable and threaten him in a public place. The said statement
of the Complainant qua the Applicant merely relates to Applicant
riding the motorcycle without helmet. It consciously avoids the issue
relating to snatching of license because no Police constable has the
power to confiscate the license if the motorcycle rider rides the
motorcycle without his helmet. The 3 witness statements of
rickshawwallas recorded by the prosecution are identical but do not
inspire any confidence of the Court either. They prima facie appear to
be interested witnesses and not independent witnesses.
3 of 6
52.Cri.APL.612.2018.doc
8. The allegation in the complaint that Complainant – Police
constable merely stopped the Applicant and pointed out that he was
riding without his helmet due to which it is alleged that the Applicant
got angered, got down from his motorcycle, held the collar of the
constable’s shirt and hurled abuses in filthy language against the
Complainant are prima facie unbelievable on the face of record.
9. It is the case of the Applicant that his helmet was very much
with him but the Police constable snatched his license after checking it
and left the incident spot after which the Applicant followed him for
getting back his license. It is seen that statement of independent
witnesses either at the incident site which occurred at 7:00 pm in the
evening on the public road have not been recorded so as to believe the
prosecution’s case neither the statement of Smt. Gavit has been
recorded or what transpired in the Police Station thereafter has been
recorded through an independent eye-witness.
10. In view of the above, it is prima facie clear that the
prosecution story is completely unbelievable. It is seen that Applicant
was made to wait and detained from 8:00 pm in night until 2:00 am
when the FIR was registered and it is the case of Applicant that
between this time he was handcuffed and made to stand in one corner
of the Police Station and was constantly abused by the Policemen
inside the Police Station.
4 of 6
52.Cri.APL.612.2018.doc
11. In order to believe the aforesaid story as to who is right, the
only way to ascertain the veracity of the same would be to consider the
CCTV footage of the Police Station about the harassment meted out to
the Applicant or to believe otherwise. Prosecution case is that no
independent witnesses statement have been recorded and the CCTV
footage which should have been preserved is not available according to
prosecution. In such circumstances the prosecution story is not only
unbelievable but in my opinion it is a false and concocted story and
case foisted on the Applicant.
12. The Application is therefore allowed in terms of prayer
clause ‘B’ which reads:-
“B. To quashed and set aside the chargsheet in C.C. NO.
1012/PW/2018 pending before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate 68 th Court,
Borivali Court, Mumbai in F.I.R. No. 76 of 2018 U/S 353, 504, 506 of
I.P.C. registered in Kasturba Marg Police Station Borivali East against
the Applicant.”
13. It is further clarified that C.C. No. 1012/PW/2018 pending
before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate 68th Court, Borivali Court, Mumbai
in FIR No. 76 of 2018 U/s 353, 504, 506 of I.P.C. is therefore quashed
and set aside.
14. The license of the Applicant if confiscated, shall be returned
back to the Applicant forthwith by the Police / Court where the license
is kept on the basis of the server / certified copy of this order
downloaded from the website of the Bombay High Court.
5 of 6
52.Cri.APL.612.2018.doc
15. Criminal Application is allowed and disposed.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally
signed by
RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2026.09.15
19:38:44
+0530
6 of 6
Checking your session…