ANUPKUMAR KRISHNARAO GHORPADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                                    -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