Bombay High Court
MAHESH MANOHAR PAWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
In the absence of any prima facie material, including medical reports or independent witness testimony, the FIR cannot stand and must be quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Summary
The petitioner, an advocate, filed a writ petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash FIR No.568/2010, which alleged offences under Sections 323, 353, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC and Sections 85(1) & (2) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The incident occurred on 9 October 2010 when the petitioner and his friends intervened in a scuffle involving the driver (respondent No.2) and a stranger, after which police arrived and the petitioner allegedly obstructed them. The petitioner claimed the police forced a false complaint, no medical examinations were conducted on the driver, and there was no prima facie evidence of the alleged offences. The State and respondent No.2 contended that the petitioner, while intoxicated, assaulted them and the police, and that medical reports and other evidence supported the charges. The Court observed the absence of independent witnesses, medical reports on the driver, and any substantive proof of injury or disorderly conduct, concluding that the prosecution had not established a prima facie case. Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the FIR and charge‑sheet.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR and charge‑sheet can be quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC on the ground of lack of prima facie evidence.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged conduct constitutes offences under the cited sections of the IPC and the Maharashtra Prohibition Act.
- Whether the absence of medical reports, independent witnesses, and specific details of alleged abuses defeats the prosecution’s case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 323, 34, 353, 504, 506
- Maharashtra Prohibition Act — s. 85(1), 85(2)
Subjects
- quash FIR
- Section 482
- prima facie evidence
- criminal procedure
- intoxication
- police assault
- Maharashtra Prohibition Act
Judgment
31.WP.1420.2020.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1420 OF 2020
Mahesh Manohar Pawar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Anees R. Deshpande, Advocates for Petitioner.
Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for Respondent – State.
Mr. Rahul Sarda, Advocate for Respondent No.2 appointed through
legal aid.
......…........…
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 31, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Deshpande, learned Advocate for Petitioner, Ms.
Newton, learned APP for Respondent – State and Mr. Sarda learned
Advocate for Respondent No.2.
2. Present Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procdure, 1973 seeking to quash and set aside First
Information Report No.568 of 2010 dated 10.10.2010 registered at
Vile Parle Police Station under Sections 323, 353, 504, 506 and 34 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 85(1) and (2) of
Maharashtra Prohibition Act against Petitioner. Copy of FIR No. 568 of
2010 is appended at Exhibit ‘A’ at page No.11 of the Petition.
3. On 09.10.2010, at 10:20 p.m. Petitioner with his two friends
was standing in front of the Satkar Hotel, Hanuman Road, Vile Parle
1 of 10
31.WP.1420.2020.doc
(East) when one stranger alighted from a rickshaw bearing number
MH-02-Z-6171 and started assaulting the driver - Hemraj Bansaraj
Singh Chavan i.e. Respondent No.2. Petitioner and his two friends
intervened to stop the fight, however at that time two other persons in
plain clothes who identified themselves as Police personnel arrived on
motorcycle and made inquiries regarding the incident. Petitioner
introduced himself as a lawyer and along with his two friends
questioned the authority of the said Police personnel to intervene and
ask them explanation. It is alleged in the complaint by Respondent
No.2 that Petitioner and his friends assaulted and prevented the Police
personnel from discharging their official duty.
3.1. It is Petitioner’s case that he and his two friends and
Respondent No.2 were then taken to V.N. Desai Hospital where no
tests were conducted or their blood sample was taken. It is Petitioner’s
case that the said two Police personnel namely, Milind Manohar Desai,
API and Sachin Mohan Bongane, Constable, forced Respondent No.2 to
lodge a false complaint against Petitioner and the other two for
causing hurt and deterring a government servant from carrying out his
duties. Pursuant thereto, FIR was registered. On 11.10.2010, Petitioner
and others were produced before Holiday Court and remanded to
Police custody. On 12.10.2010 Petitioner was released on bail. On
28.07.2015 i.e. nearly five years later chargesheet was filed. Copy of
chargesheet is appended at Exhibit ‘B’ - page No.16 of the Petition. I
2 of 10
31.WP.1420.2020.doc
have perused the same.
4. Mr. Deshpande, learned advocate for Petitioner would
submit that in so far as charge under Section 353 of IPC is concerned,
the Police personnel who were allegedly prevented from performing
duty ought to have have lodged the complaint themselves. He would
submit that in the instant case, concerned Police personnel have been
cited as witnesses. He would submit that no medical examination of
Respondent No.2 was conducted and hence no medical certificate is
available.
4.1. He would submit that the Police personnel pressurized
Respondent No.2 to register the complaint. He would submit that
alcohol examination certificate indicated 0.039% percent of ethyl
alcohol present in his blood which was negligible. He would submit
that details regarding abuses hurled by Petitioner or details of
disorderly behaviour under Section 85(1) of Maharashtra Prohibition
Act which are necessary for adjudication, are not provided. In support
of Petitioner’s case he would refer to and rely upon the decision of this
Court given at the Aurangabad Bench in the case of Ashok Hari Chavan
Vs. The State of Maharashtra1 and contend that it would be necessary
to enlighten the Court as to what sort of abuses were uttered by the
accused by giving details of the abuses and it would be for the Court to
determine whether those abuses could be termed as verging on,
1 2001 ALL MR (Cri) 1704, (Criminal Revision Application No.164/1992)
3 of 10
31.WP.1420.2020.doc
disorderly behaviour. He would submit that there were no independent
witnesses to corroborate the version of Respondent No.2.
4.2. He would submit that the incident took place in the year
2010 and chargesheet is filed in the year 2015, that trial is pending for
recording of evidencec from 2015 till 2023 and was ultimately stayed
on 18.10.2023. He would submit that Petitioner has no antecedents
and has suffered heavy embarrassment and defamation for past 16
years along with prejudice to his professional practice. He would
submit that allegations made out against Petitioner do not prima facie
constitute any offence. Hence, in view of aforesaid submissions he
prays that the chargesheet and all proceedings be quashed and set
aside.
5. Mr. Sarda, learned advocate for Respondent No.2 appointed
through the legal aid would submit that the narration of events by the
Petitioner is contrary to the record of the case as per the Complaint,
FIR and chargesheet. He would submit that according to statement of
Complainant i.e. Respondent No.2, Petitioner while being in an
intoxicated state of affairs along with a woman boarded the auto-
rickshaw of Respondent No.2. He would submit that an argument
turned into a quarrel between Petitioner and Respondent No.2 over
alleged indecent conduct of Petitioner and the woman while travelling
in the auto-rickshaw. He would submit that when Petitioner alighted at
4 of 10
31.WP.1420.2020.doc
his destination near Satkar Hotel, he along with his two accomplices
while hurling abuses started beating Respondent No.2 with fists and
kicks over the quarrel.
5.1. He would submit that the two Police personnel on patrolling
duty who intervened but they were also assaulted by Petitioner and
prevented from discharging their duty. He would submit that Petitioner
also threatened them by stating that he was an Advocate. Furthermore,
he would submit that due to disorderly conduct of Petitioner, a Police
van was called to the crime scene which took all four of them viz.,
Petitioner, his two friends and Respondent No.2 to the Police Station
and thereafter for medical examination.
5.2. He would submit that therefore in view of stark contrast
between the version of events as narrated by Petitioner in the Petition
and the record of the case, the truth ought to be unearthed during trial
only. He would submit that Petitioner’s contention that no medical
tests were conducted or blood samples were taken is false. He would
submit that after duly conducting Petitioner’s blood sample
examination it was revealed that his blood contained 39 mg. alcohol in
100 cc.
5.3. He would submit that Petitioner has not approached this
Court with clean hands and hence, deserves no discretionary relief
from this Court. He would submit that Petition raises disputed
5 of 10
31.WP.1420.2020.doc
questions of fact which ought to be decided during trial and that
quashing of FIR would scuttle the trial. He would submit that version
of facts narrated by Petitioner nowhere explains as to why he was
implicated in the case when he claims to have only tried to pacify the
situation. He would submit that the FIR, the statements of witnesses
and the blood report of Petitioner belie his version of events narrated
in the Petition.
5.4. He would refer to and rely upon the following decisions of
the Supreme Court in support of his submissions: (i) S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu V. Jagannath2, (ii) State of Karnataka V. M.
Devendrappa & Anr.3 Moreover, he would submit that quashing a FIR
on the ground that incident took place in the year 2010 and remained
pending since long period, is untenable in law. He would submit that
Petitioner is not suffering any incarceration, further his life and liberty
are not curtailed in any manner and therefore, Petitioner being
accused of aforementioned offences cannot avoid trial and the
consequences thereof. He would submit that Petitioner cannot avoid
trial by seeking quashing of charges especially when there is prima
facie material on record which shows that his approach was malafide,
therefore he would submit that present Petition be dismissed.
2 1994 AIR 853
3 (2003) 3 SCC 89
6 of 10
31.WP.1420.2020.doc
6. Ms. Newton, learned APP for Respondent No.1 - State would
vehemently oppose the present Petition and submit that version of
facts narrated by the Petitioner is contradictory to the record of the
case. She would submit that on perusal of chargesheet it is revealed
that Petitioner being an Advocate by profession has approached this
Court with malafide intent and unclean hands. She would adopt the
arguments advanced by Mr. Sarda which are not delineated herein for
brevity and persuade this Court that Petition be dismissed for the
reasons in foregoing paragraphs.
7. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the
respective parties and with their able assistance, perused the record of
the case. Submissions made by learned Advocates at the bar have
received due consideration of the Court.
8. At the outset it is clearly seen that there are two versions of
events narrated by both parties, however apart from that it is observed
that there are no independent witnesses, further no single eye witness
is cited to support the case of Complainant - Respondent No.2. It is
seen that neither CCTV footage nor medical report has been annexed
to the chargesheet so as to reveal any kind of bodily injury to
Respondent No.2. It is observed that after the incident, all four persons
were taken to V.N. Desai Hospital for medical examination. However it
is seen that only examination reports of Petitioner and his two friends
7 of 10
31.WP.1420.2020.doc
are annexed hereto at page Nos.32 to 37 showing alcohol examination
certificate.
9. It is seen that no medical examination report of Respondent
No.2 has been provided though he was taken to the same hospital
along with other three persons. Furthermore, it is seen that no medical
report has been provided to show injuries suffered by Respondent No.2
who was alleged to have been beaten up by three persons with fists
and kick blows so as to attract Section 323 of IPC. Neither does the FIR
disclose any specific abuses hurled at Respondent No.2 by the
Petitioner which are necessary for adjudication.
10. Moreover, it is seen that examination report which shows
that Petitioner was under intoxication does not prima facie accuse him
of committing the offences registered under IPC. It is seen that as per
the Complainant’s narration in FIR, the alleged woman who was
travelling with Petitioner in Respondent No.2’s auto-rickshaw was
neither examined nor was her statement recorded. It is seen that no
explanation regarding disorderly behviour of Petitioner while being
drunk has been given in the FIR or in the statements on record. The
charge of the prosecution that Petitioner assaulted the two Police
personnel falls completely short of any proof. There has to be prima
facie evidence of the same to be believed. It merely cannot be believed
on the version of the Complainant.
8 of 10
31.WP.1420.2020.doc
11. On perusal of record of the case it is seen that present
matter has been pending for a very long time due to non-cooperation
of Respondent No.2 who is non-traceable even after issuing paper
publication. It is seen that in order to attract the aforementioned
offfences with which Petitioner is charged, it was necessary to provide
a detailed explanation of the alleged wrongful act committed by the
Petitioner along with his two friends and place corroborative evidence.
It is seen that in absence of material on record to make out a case
against the Petitioner, matter was pending for recording of evidence
since 2015. Therefore, prima facie there is no material at all placed by
prosecution even to suggest that the Petitioner committed any of the
alleged offenses with which he is charged.
12. Hence, in view of the aforementioned findings and
observations, FIR No. 568 of 2010 along with Sessions Case
No.87/2021 pending on file of 7th Sessions Court at Dindoshi,
Goregaon, against Petitioner, I am inclined to accept the submissions
of Mr. Deshpande and determine the present Petition affirmatively.
13. Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which
reads thus:-
a. Call for the record and proceedings pertaining to F.I.R
No.568/2010 u/s, 323, 353, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. and section
85(1), (2) of the Mumbai Prohibition Act registered at Vile Parle Police
station, Mumbai and charge-sheet dated 28/07/2015 with
C.C.No.1550/PW/15 filed by the Respondent in the Sessions Case
No.87/2021 pending before Court room no.7, Dindoshi, Goregaon,
9 of 10
31.WP.1420.2020.doc
Mumbai, in the Court of Ld. C. M. 65 th Court, Andheri, Mumbai, and
after examining the legality, validity and propriety thereof, quash and
set side the same qua the Petitioner and for that purpose issue
appropriate writ, order or direction.
14. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
Digitally signed
HARSHADA by HARSHADA
HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date: 2026.08.31
12:13:23 +0530
10 of 10
Checking your session…