SURENDRA RAMPATH MISHRAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                                                60. WP 671-2026.doc



                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          WRIT PETITION NO. 671 OF 2026

                      Surendra Rampath Mishra                             .Petitioner

                                  Vs.

                      The State of Maharashtra                            .Respondent

ANAND                 Mr. Parth Govilkar a/w. Mr. Rishi Bhuta, Ms. Ankita Bamboli, Ms. Neha
SUDHAKAR
SUDAME                Patil, Mr. Ujwal Gandhi, Mr. K. R. Shah, Mr. Prateek Dutta, Mr Pratham
Digitally signed by
                      Jain, Ms. Tanvi Kondalkar, Ms. Maitrayee Ganediwala, Ms. Sakshi Jha
ANAND SUDHAKAR        & Ms. Vaishnavi Jhaveri, Advocates, for the Petitioner
SUDAME
Date: 2026.09.24      Ms. R. V. Newton, APP, for the Respondent – State
18:32:50 +0530
                      Mr. Nitin D. Sawant, PSI, Bangur Nagar Police Station present

                                          CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

                                          DATE      : 22.09.2026
                      P. C.

                      1.      Heard Mr. Govilkar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and

                      Mr. Palkar, learned APP for the Respondent – State.

                      2.      By the present Petition, the Petitioner is seeking to quash and set

                      aside the FIR bearing No. 170 of 2017 for the offences punishable

                      under Sections 308, 294, 114 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

                      and under Sections 3, 8(1), 8(2), 8(4) of the Maharashtra Prohibition

                      of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants And Bar Rooms And

                      Protection of Dignity of Women Act, 2016. The Petitioner is an

                      Advocate.


                      Anand                               1 of 4
                                                        60. WP 671-2026.doc

3.      The allegations in the impugned FIR and the material prima facie

indicate that the Petitioner was a customer in the bar when the police

conducted the raid. The same is prima facie evident from the FIR itself

which is seen from page No. 99. Mr. Govilkar, learned Advocate would

submit that apart from referring to the Petitioner as customer, there is

no other material or incriminating evidence of whatsoever nature in

the impugned FIR or Charge-sheet to make out any case against the

Petitioner for the offences for which he is charged. He would submit

that there is no material to show that the Petitioner has behaved in any

indecent manner or otherwise committed the alleged crime. He would,

therefore, submit that prosecuting the Petitioner would amount to an

abuse of the legal process of law.

4.      Ms. Newton, learned APP would, however, submit that the

allegations against the Petitioner in the present crime prima facie

seems to be that he was a customer in the FIR. However, she would

submit that since this is a case of 2017, the trial may have commenced

that she does not know the status of the trial. The trial case before the

trial Court qua the Petitioner is for committal. After perusing the record

with the able assistance of the learned Advocates, I see that there are

no allegations against the Petitioner before me that he having indulged

in an indecent act in the bar and restaurant. Save and except to state


Anand                                2 of 4
                                                          60. WP 671-2026.doc

that he was present in the bar sipping Thums Up in view of the fact

that no specific overt act is attributed to the Petitioner. The Petitioner’s

presence in the bar primarily as a customer, I am inclined to accept the

submissions made by the learned Advocates. The Petition stands

allowed.

5.      Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 conferred

inherent powers on High Courts to pass such orders as are justified to

give effect to any order in the Court, prevent abuse of process of any

Court or secure the ends of justice. In the BNSS this provision stands

incorporated with Section 528 which substantially reproduces the

language and intent of Section 482 of the CRPC, 1973 High Courts

invoke this provision to step in where cases have been instituted with

malafide motives or to harass the accused person thereby avoiding

procedural harassment. It empowers Court to dismiss FIRs or criminal

proceedings if there is no prima facie case or evidence against the

accused person/s or if orders are made in violation of the principles of

natural justice. The exercise of such powers under Section 482 of CRPC

and now Section 528 of BNSS remains discretionary and varies from

case to case.

6.      In State of Harayana vs Bhajan Lal 1 the Supreme Court laid

down model categories and guidelines in paragraph No. 102 of the said
1
     1992 AIR 604

Anand                              3 of 4
                                                               60. WP 671-2026.doc

judgment in which the FIRs can be quashed. The Supreme Court has

further asserted that power under Section 482 is an acknowledgment

of "powers inherent" and not the source of powers additional. It has

held that even non compoundable offences can be quashed where

necessary. It has held that High Courts have to decide whether the

prosecution of an offence would further or be against the interest of

justice. It is also held that grievous offences such as murder, rape, and

dacoity cannot ordinarily be quashed even after settlement because

they involve societal implication.


7.      In view of the above matter, the present Petition is allowed in

terms of prayer clause ‘b’ which read thus:-

           “b)   That in case the cognizance order is quashed then the charge sheet
                 bearing no. 4637/PW/2019 and non bailable warrants issued on
                 31/01/2020, 27/11/2021 and 19/12/2025 pending on the files of
                 68th Court JMFC Borivali be quashed against the Petitioner.”



8.      Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.


                                                      (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)




Anand                                 4 of 4