HAKIMUDDIN TAIYABALI BHORI AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                                                   902-WP-224-2026 (CR).odt




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 224 OF 2026

               1)        Hakimuddin Taiyabali Bhori            ]
                         Age – 77 Years, Occu. Business,       ]

               2)        Fakruddin Taiyabali Bhori             ]
                         Age – 75 Years, Occu. Business,       ]

               3)        Kasambhai Taiyabali Bhori             ]
                         Age-91 Years, Occu. Business,         ]

               4)        Alataf Hussain Abdulhusain Bhori      ]
                         Age – 53 Years, Occu. Business,       ]

               5)        Hussain Anvarbhai Bhori               ]
                         Age – 34 Years, Occu. Business,       ]

               6)         Ajit Kuraban Hussain Bhori             ]
                          Age – 33 Years, Occu. Business,        ]
                          All R/o. 36 B 23 Venus Villa,          ]
         Digitally
         signed by
         SHAILAJA         Tarabai Park, Kolhapur                 ]    Petitioners
SHAILAJA SHRIKANT
SHRIKANT HALKUDE
HALKUDE Date:
                                 versus
         2026.09.15
         18:27:15
         +0530
                          State of Maharashtra,                  ]
                          Through Shahupuri Police Station,      ]
                          Kolhapur.                              ]    Respondent
                                                           ...
                    Mr. Kunal V. Patil, a/w Rajnandini P. Katkar, Advocates for Petitioners.
                    Mr. Pankaj P. Deokar, APP for Respondent-State.
                    S. R. Gunavare, PSI, Shahupuri Police Station, Kolhapur, present.
                                                           ...

                                                  CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
                                                  DATE  : SEPTEMBER 11, 2026
               ORAL JUDGMENT :

               1.              The Petitioners have invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya

               Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking quashing of the
               Shubham                                                                          Page 1 of 7
                                                                902-WP-224-2026 (CR).odt



First Information Report bearing Crime No.710 of 2025, dated 6 th October

2025, registered with Shahupuri Police Station, District Kolhapur (for short,

“the FIR”), for the offences punishable under Section 143(2) of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”), and under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of

the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short, “ the Act”), as well as

Regular Criminal Case No.1643 of 2025, arising therefrom and pending

before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolhapur.

2.           Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the

consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties. I have perused

the record, i.e. the F.I.R., statements of the Victims, i.e. Sonali Santosh

Khaire and Anamika Samarsing Kushwah, who were found with the punter

under Section 183 of the BNSS, and the record as pointed out by the learned

Advocates for the respective parties.

3.           On 6th October, 2025, the Complainant, Police Head Constable

Mr. Uttam Sadolikar, Anti-Human Trafficking Cell, Kolhapur, lodged the

report against Accused No.1, Mr. Jaysing Khot (for short, “Jaysing”),

alleging that Police Inspector Yadav received information from a spy that

prostitution activity was run at Venus Lodge at Venus Chowk, Kolhapur;

therefore, she sent two punters there as dummy customers. After receiving

the signal, they conducted a raid and arrested accused Jaysingh on the spot. It

is also alleged that he keeps and manages a brothel at Venus Lodge.

Shubham                                                                      Page 2 of 7
                                                                 902-WP-224-2026 (CR).odt



Accordingly, a report was lodged against Accused Jaysingh. Based on the

said report, the offence was registered vide FIR No. 710 of 2025.

4.           During the investigation, the Investigating Officer found that on

5th August, 2025, the said Jaysingh had transferred Rs. 3,33,000/- to each of

the Petitioners' bank accounts and, therefore, the Investigating Officer made

them accused in the present crime. After completion of the investigation, the

Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet. Aggrieved by the same, the

Petitioners have preferred this Petition.

5.           It is pertinent to note that during the argument, learned APP, on

instructions, fairly submitted that since 5th August, 2025, Accused No. 1,

Jaysing, has been running Hotel Venus. Similarly, he pointed out Jaysing's

bank statement to the Court. On perusal of the same, it is evident that on the

said date, Jaysing transferred an amount of Rs. 3,33,000/- to the bank account

of each of the Petitioners. Therefore, the learned APP vehemently contended

that the said facts prima facie indicate the Petitioners' involvement in the

present crime. Accordingly, they were implicated as accused in the present

crime. However, on query, he failed to point out any documents other than

Jaysing's bank statement to show that the Petitioners are also involved in the

present crime or had knowledge that Jaysing was running the brothel.

6.           It is worth noting that in the FIR, there are no allegations against

the Petitioners that they have any concern with the present crime. Likewise,
Shubham                                                                       Page 3 of 7
                                                                 902-WP-224-2026 (CR).odt



none of the witnesses has stated that they have any concern with the alleged

crime or that they were/are running the said brothel with Jaysing.

7.           It is not in dispute that the Petitioners are joint owners of Hotel

Venus and that on 5th August, 2025, they handed over the said lodge to

Jaysingh to run the same. Till October, nothing happened. Apart from that,

learned APP failed to point out for what purpose the said amount was

transferred by Jaysingh to the bank account of the Petitioners, though the

Investigating Officer has thoroughly conducted the investigation.

8.           The learned APP has failed to point out from any document or

from the statements of any of the witnesses any material whatsoever to

establish that the Petitioners have any nexus or connection with the alleged

crime, or that they were or are in any manner involved in the commission of

the said offence. The mere fact that an amount was transferred by Jaysingh

into the bank account of the Petitioners, by itself, cannot lead to an inference

that the Petitioners were concerned with the alleged crime, were involved

therein, or had any knowledge that Jaysingh was allegedly running a brothel

in the said Hotel/Lodge. On the contrary, the material on record indicates

that, on 5th August 2025, the Petitioners handed over the said Hotel/Lodge to

Jaysingh to run the same. In such circumstances, the amount transferred by

Jaysingh into the bank account of the Petitioners could well have been

towards a security deposit or other consideration for permitting him to run

Shubham                                                                       Page 4 of 7
                                                                902-WP-224-2026 (CR).odt



the said Hotel/Lodge, and there is no material to suggest otherwise. In the

absence of any independent material connecting the said amount with the

alleged prostitution business, it cannot be inferred that it was paid to the

Petitioners as commission towards such business or received by them in

connection with any partnership or other business arrangement with accused

Jaysingh.

9.           It is also material to note that the said amount was received by

the Petitioners prior to the commencement of the Hotel/Lodging business by

accused Jaysingh. Therefore, on the basis of this financial transaction alone,

and without any further material demonstrating the Petitioners’ knowledge,

participation, or nexus with the alleged offence, no adverse inference can

legitimately be drawn against the Petitioners.


10.          Besides, the prosecution has recorded the statements of the two

victims; however, neither of them has stated anything against the Petitioners

so as to implicate them in the alleged crime. They have merely stated that

Jaysingh had called them to the Hotel/Lodge for prostitution. Neither of the

said victims nor any other witness has stated anything against the Petitioners

regarding their involvement in the alleged crime in question.

11.          Learned Advocate for the Petitioners and learned APP jointly

submitted that the learned CJM, Kolhapur, has committed the matter to the

learned Sessions Court and the same is registered as Sessions Case No. 78 of
Shubham                                                                      Page 5 of 7
                                                                 902-WP-224-2026 (CR).odt



2026 and, therefore, the learned Advocate for the Petitioners urges for

quashing the Sessions Case No. 78 of 2026 against the present Petitioners.

12.          In light of the foregoing discussion and upon consideration of

the material on record, at the outset, it appears that the Petitioners had handed

over the Hotel to accused Jaysingh for running the same and had accepted a

deposit from him. Nothing in the FIR or in the statements of the witnesses,

even prima facie, indicates that the Petitioners had any connection with the

alleged offence or that they were involved in its commission along with

accused Jaysingh. Despite being afforded sufficient opportunity, the learned

APP could not point out any material against the Petitioners, save and except

the bank statement already relied upon by him. A perusal of the said bank

statement does not indicate that the Petitioners received the amount in

question towards or in connection with the running of prostitution activities

at Venus Hotel/Lodge. In the aforesaid circumstances, it appears that the

Petitioners have made out a case for exercise of the inherent powers of this

Court under Section 528 of the BNSS. Consequently, FIR No. 710 of 2025

and the criminal proceedings bearing RCC No. 1643 of 2025, instituted

pursuant thereto, are liable to be quashed and set aside.

13.          That being so, in my view, the continuation of the prosecution

against the Petitioners in the present case would amount to an abuse of the

process of law and would not serve the ends of justice. In the circumstances,

Shubham                                                                       Page 6 of 7
                                                                902-WP-224-2026 (CR).odt



the further continuation of the prosecution against the Petitioners would serve

no useful purpose.

14.          Consequently, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause

(a), to the extent of the Petitioners. Accordingly, FIR bearing Crime No. 710

of 2025, dated 6th October 2025, registered with Shahupuri Police Station,

District Kolhapur, for the offences punishable under Section 143(2) of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Act, as well

as the pendency of Sessions Case No. 78 of 2026 before the learned Sessions

Court, Kolhapur (before committal, registered as R.C.C. No. 1643 of 2025),

arising out of the said FIR, are hereby quashed and set aside, to the extent of

the Petitioners.

15.          The Rule is made absolute in the above terms . No order as to

costs.

16.          Inform the concerned Court accordingly.

17.          The Petition stands disposed of.



                                                   (ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)




Shubham                                                                      Page 7 of 7