GIRISH NIGONDA PATILversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

2026:BHC-KOL:7834
                                                                               2.WP.3550.2025.odt



                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 3550 OF 2025

                   Girish Nigonda Patil,
                   Age : 32 Years, Occu : Agriculturist,
                   R/o. At Post Maroli, Tq. Mangalwedha,
                   Dist. Solapur.                                  ...PETITIONER

                            VERSUS

          1.       The State of Maharashtra,
                   Through Mangalwedha Police Station,
                   Dist. Solapur

          2.       Savita Aaganu Ingole,
                   Age : 37 years, Occu : Service,
                   R/o. At/Pt – Khave,
                   Tal. Mangalwedha, Dist. Solapur                 ...RESPONDENTS

                                             ***
           Mr. Ritish Thobde a/w Mr. Changdev Shingade, Mr. Pushkaraj Yadav –
           Deshmukh, Ms. Divyashree Dhumal and Ms. Siddhi Jeur, Advocate for the
           Petitioner.
           Mr. Anand S. Shalgaonkar, APP for Respondent – State.
           Mr. Ajit Vishwanath Alange, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                             ***

                                                CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
                                                DATE  : AUGUST 20, 2026
          ORAL JUDGMENT :

          1.                The Petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court

          under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘ Cr. P.

          C.’) to quash and set aside the First Information Report No.0090 of 2024

          dated 05th February 2024 (for short, ‘FIR’) lodged with the Mangalwedha

          Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 353, 354 and
          Shrikant Malani                                                            Page 1 of 9
                                                                    2.WP.3550.2025.odt



354-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ((for short, ‘ IPC’) and, by way of

amendment, prayed for quashing and setting aside the charge-sheet bearing

Regular Criminal Case No.198 of 2024 filed pursuant to said FIR.

2.                Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally

with the consent of learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned APP and

learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2. Perused the charge-sheet

and record.

3.                On 05th February 2024, Respondent No. 2 – victim lodged the

report against the Petitioner alleging that at about 12:30 p.m., the Petitioner

entered into the Gram Panchayat office, whereupon some altercation took

place between them and, during the altercation, he snatched the approval

order, tore it up and threw it on the table. Thereafter, he grabbed and pressed

her right shoulder and shoved her away after doing something that made her

feel ashamed. Based on the said complaint, an offence was registered against

the Petitioner vide Crime No. 0090 of 2024 for offences punishable under

Sections 323, 353, 354, and 354-A of the IPC. Being aggrieved by the same,

the Petitioner has preferred this Petition.


4.                During the pendency of this Writ Petition, the investigation was

completed, and therefore, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge-sheet

against the Petitioner. As such, the Petitioner has also challenged the said

charge-sheet.

Shrikant Malani                                                           Page 2 of 9
                                                                    2.WP.3550.2025.odt




5.                It is pertinent to note that during the course of arguments, the

learned counsel for the Petitioner did not press the prayer to quash the

proceedings under Sections 323 and 353 of the IPC. However, he only

emphasised that the ingredients of Sections 354 and 354-A of the IPC are not

attracted against the Petitioner. He further canvassed that it does not appear

that the Petitioner pressed her right shoulder with the intention of outraging

the modesty of the victim. No intention to outrage the modesty of the victim

appears; therefore, he urged that, to the extent of the offence under Sections

354 and 354-A of the IPC, the FIR and the charge-sheet be quashed and set

aside.

6.                It is further argued that the Petitioner had made a complaint

against Respondent No. 2 with the Block Development Officer, Panchayat

Samiti, Mangalwedha. The BDO had issued a notice to her; therefore, to

counter the said complaint and out of grudge, the Respondent No. 2 lodged a

false FIR against the Petitioner. He further submits that a bare perusal of the

FIR does not indicate that the Petitioner, with an intention to outrage the

modesty of the victim, made any physical contact and advances involving

unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures.


7.                To buttress his submissions, he has placed reliance on the

judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naresh Aneja alias Naresh


Shrikant Malani                                                           Page 3 of 9
                                                                 2.WP.3550.2025.odt



Kumar Aneja Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another1 and drew my attention to

paragraph Nos. 20 to 24 of the said judgment and in Salib Alias Shalu Alis

Salim Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others 2 and pointed out paragraph No. 26

of the said judgment and submitted that, in view of the law laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the above judgments, the Petitioner is entitled to

be absolved of the offences under Sections 354 and 354-A of the IPC.

Therefore, he urged for quashing the FIR against the Petitioner to the extent

of Sections 354 and 354-A of the IPC.


8.                Per contra, learned APP and the learned counsel appearing for

Respondent No. 2 vehemently opposed the Writ Petition, contending that the

averments made in the FIR clearly indicate that the Petitioner has outraged

the modesty of the victim and, therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to the

relief as sought. They also submitted that the victim, in her statement, has

categorically stated that the Petitioner pressed her right shoulder and shoved

her away after doing something that made her feel ashamed with an intention

to outrage her modesty and that her statement was supported by two eye-

witnesses and, therefore, they submitted that the Petitioner has failed to make

out a case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court and urged for

rejection of the Writ Petition.



1    (2025) 2 SCC 604
2    (2023) 20 SCC 194

Shrikant Malani                                                        Page 4 of 9
                                                                         2.WP.3550.2025.odt



9.                Having heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the

parties and gone through the FIR and charge-sheet, at the outset, I would like

to reproduce the relevant part of the averment made in the FIR as under:

                  “----- R;kosGh R;kus nq¸;e izrsoj vkMok f’kDdk ekjk vls Eg.kq
                  ykxyk vlrk eh R;kl Eg.kkys dh eh ?kjdqy eatqjhps vkns’k
                  ykHkkFkhZuk nsoqu >kys uarj eh vkMOkk f’kDdk f’kDdk ek:u nsrs
                  vls Eg.kq ykxyh R;kosGsl fxjh”k fuxksaMk ikVhy ;kus eyk ,dsjh
                  Hkk”kke/;s rq eyk vkrkps vkrk vkMok f’kDdk ek:u ns vls Eg.kqu
                  xkops ljiap jktdqekj jkexkSaMk ikVhy o f’kikbZ jes’k lxkUuk
                  ljts ;kps leksj R;kus ek>s gkrkrhy ?kjdqy etqjhps vkns’k
                  fgldkoqu ?ksoqu QkMqu Vscyoj Vkdqu ek>s mtO;k [kkan;kyk gkr
                  ykoqu nkcqu eyk yTtkokVys vls d`R; d:u /kdyqu nsoqu eh
                  djr vlysY;k ‘kkldh; dkekr vMFkGk dsyk R;kosGsl ljiap o
                  rsFks gtj vlysyk f’kikbZ ;kauh R;kl rq vls d: udksl vls
                  Eg.kqu R;kl vkWfQl ps ckgsj dk<ys R;kuarj vkeps xkas/kGkpk
                  vkokt ,sdqu xzkeiapk;r leksj gtj vkl.kkjs xqykc] lunh]
                  egkurs’k ukxkIik te[kaMh] xq:jkt te[kaMh vls ek>s toG vkys
                  eh ?kMyk izdkj R;kauk lkafxryk vkWfQl e/;s fxjh”k fuxksaMk
                  ikVhy ;kpk eksckbZy [kkyhiMY;kus rks eksckbZy eh ?ksoqu eh ek>s
                  irh lkscr eaxGos<k iksyhlk Bk.ksl ?kMys izdkjkcr rdzkj ns.;kl
                  vkyh vlqu ek>h ?kMys izdkjkckcr rdzkj vkgs- lkscr vk.kysyk
                  eksckbZy vki.kklle{k gtj djhr vkgs- -----”

10.               Bare perusal of the above averments, prima facie, indicates that

the victim was doing her job in the Gram Panchayat office when the

Petitioner entered into the office and quarrelled with her, and snatched the

approval order, tore it up and threw it on the table. Thereafter, he grabbed and


Shrikant Malani                                                                Page 5 of 9
                                                                     2.WP.3550.2025.odt



pressed her right shoulder and shoved her away after doing something that

made her feel ashamed. Thus, prima facie, it reveals that the Petitioner used

assault or criminal force to deter her from discharging her duty as a public

servant and also outraged her modesty, causing her to feel ashamed. The said

averments themselves attract the ingredients of Sections 323, 353 and 354 of

the IPC. However, prima facie, it does not appear that the Petitioner, with an

intent to commit physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and

explicit sexual overtures or a demand for sexual favours, as contemplated in

Section 354-A of the IPC. Therefore, prima facie, the ingredients of Section

354-A of the IPC are not attracted against the Petitioner.


11.               Apart from that, on perusal of the FIR as well as the statements

of the two eyewitnesses, one of whom is the Sarpanch of the Village and the

other is the peon of the Gram Panchayat office, who were present on the spot,

it appears that their statements corroborate and support the statement of the

victim. Moreover, the statements of the other witnesses, and other material,

prima facie indicate that, on the day of the incident, the Petitioner was

present on the spot and he outraged the modesty of the victim and also

committed assault to deter her from discharging her official duty.


12.               In Naresh (supra), the facts were different from the case in hand.

In the said case, there was an absence of prima facie evidence indicating the


Shrikant Malani                                                            Page 6 of 9
                                                                     2.WP.3550.2025.odt



use of any force against the victim therein and the requisite intent on the part

of the Appellant therein. However, in the case in hand, prima facie, the

averments made in the FIR indicate that the Petitioner used assault or

criminal force to deter her from discharging her duty as a public servant and

also outraged her modesty, causing her to feel ashamed. Therefore, in my

view, the law laid down in Naresh (supra) is hardly of any assistance to the

Petitioner in support of his submissions.


13.               In Salib (supra), the facts are totally different from the case in

hand. In the said case, the name of the accused was not disclosed in the FIR,

but the victim’s statement did so. So also, in the said case, there was prima

facie material to show that the case was fabricated, and the ingredients of

Section 506 were attracted, whereas the offences under Sections 195-A and

386 of the IPC were found not to be made out. Moreover, in the said case,

multiple FIRs were registered against the Appellant therein. However, in the

case at hand, the statements of the victim and the two eyewitnesses

consistently indicate that on the day of the incident, the Petitioner entered the

Gram Panchayat office, quarrelled with the victim, snatched the approval

order, tore it up, and threw it on the table. Thereafter, he grabbed and pressed

the victim’s right shoulder and shoved her away after doing something that

made her feel ashamed. Therefore, it cannot be said that the victim, with a

malicious intention, lodged the FIR against the Petitioner. Therefore, the

Shrikant Malani                                                            Page 7 of 9
                                                                       2.WP.3550.2025.odt



observations made in paragraph No.26 of the said judgment are hardly of any

assistance to the Petitioner in support of his case.


14.               In the light of the above discussion, at the outset, it appears that

the Petitioner has prima facie failed to make out a case to invoke Section 482

of the Cr.P.C. to quash the entire FIR, i.e. to quash the offences punishable

under Sections 353, 354 and 323 of the IPC. However, prima facie, the

ingredients of Section 354-A of the IPC are not attracted against the

Petitioner. That being so, and considering the above discussion, in my view,

the Petitioner has made out a case to invoke Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to the

extent of Section 354-A of the IPC.


15.               As a result, the Writ Petition is partly allowed to the extent of

quashing the FIR and charge-sheet insofar as the offence punishable under

Section 354-A of the IPC is concerned. However, the Petitioner failed to make

out a case to invoke Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. to quash the FIR and charge-

sheet in respect of Sections 323, 353 and 354 of the IPC. Hence, the Petition

is dismissed to the extent of quashing the FIR and charge-sheet in respect of

Sections 323, 353 and 354 of the IPC.


16.               Consequently, the Petition is partly allowed in the above terms.


17.               Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.



Shrikant Malani                                                              Page 8 of 9
                                                                    2.WP.3550.2025.odt



18.               Inform the concerned Court accordingly.


19.               Needless to clarify that the observations made hereinabove shall

not come in the way of the Petitioner during the trial.



                                                       (ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)




Shrikant Malani                                                           Page 9 of 9