RISHI RAJESH KAPOORA AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

                                  -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