Bombay High Court
ARVIND COUTINHOversusSTATE OF GOA THR. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND 2 ORS.
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The FIR, charge‑sheet and all ensuing criminal proceedings are quashed as they do not disclose any offence and amount to an abuse of process.
Summary
Arvind Coutinho filed a writ petition seeking the quashing of FIR No.84/2025 and Charge‑sheet No.33/2026 filed by the Margao Police Station on a complaint by his neighbour, Keagan Cardoz. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 281 and 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 134(a)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming that Coutinho rashly rode his scooter and injured the complainant. The Court examined the CCTV footage, which showed only an accidental contact of the scooter’s rear‑view mirror with the complainant’s elbow, with no rash or negligent driving and no injury requiring medical aid. The Court held that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were absent and that the proceeding was an abuse of process, invoking the Bhajan Lal categories. Consequently, the FIR, the charge‑sheet and all consequential proceedings were quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether the facts disclosed in the FIR and charge‑sheet satisfy the statutory elements of Sections 281 and 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
- Whether the criminal proceeding constitutes an abuse of process and may be quashed under the inherent powers of the Court.
- Whether the petition for quashing the FIR and charge‑sheet should be entertained under the Bhajan Lal doctrine.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 125(a), 281
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 134(a), 134(b)
Subjects
- quash petition
- FIR
- abuse of process
- rash driving
- negligent driving
- motor vehicle accident
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Motor Vehicles Act
- Bhajan Lal doctrine
- housing society dispute
Judgment
2026:BHC-GOA:1840 Mr Arvind Coutinho
vs.
State of Goa and 2 ors.
__________________________________________________
WPCR 178 of 2026
Vinita
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 178 OF 2026.
Arvind Coutinho, Son of William A Coutinho,
52 years of age, Unemployed
R/o flat No.109, Dreams Skyline
Maintenance Housing Society Pvt. Ltd.,
Calvaddo, Navelim, Salcete, South Goa. …PETITIONER
~ VERSUS ~
1. State of Goa,
Through the Public Prosecutor, High
Court of Bombay at Goa, Porvorim-Goa.
2. The Police Inspector, Margao Police Station
Margao- Goa
3. Keagan Cardoz Resident of Flat No. 110
Dreams Skyline Maintenace Housing
Society Pvt. Ltd.,Calvaddo, Navelim, Salcete,
South- Goa. …RESPONDENTS
A PPEARANCES :
for the Petitioner. Mr. Nigel Costa Frias with Mr. Shane
Coutinho and Ms. M. Fernandes,
Advocates.
for the Respondent No.1 Mr. Nikhil Vaze, Addl. Public
and 2. Prosecutor.
Page 1 of 14
11th September 2026
Mr Arvind Coutinho
vs.
State of Goa and 2 ors.
__________________________________________________
WPCR 178 of 2026
For the Respondent No.3. Mr. Ravindra Kudalkar with Mr. N. De.
Sousa, Advocates.
CORAM : AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.
Reserved on : 19th August 2026.
Pronounced on : 11th September 2026.
JUDGMENT
1. By the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks the quashing of FIR No.
84/2025. The Margao Police Station registered the FIR on 26.10.2025
based on the complaint filed by the 3rd Respondent. Subsequently, the
prosecution filed a chargesheet against the Petitioner. Accordingly,
the Petitioner also seeks the quashing of the subsequent Chargesheet
No. 33/2026 and the criminal case arising therefrom, pending before
the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Margao (the JMFC).
2. Heard Mr. Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioner, Mr. Vaze, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
on behalf of the State, i.e. the 1st and 2nd Respondents, and Mr.
Kudalkar learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd
Respondent.
Page 2 of 14
11th September 2026
Mr Arvind Coutinho
vs.
State of Goa and 2 ors.
__________________________________________________
WPCR 178 of 2026
3. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the
parties and heard finally. Mr. Vaze, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, waives service on behalf of the 1st and 2nd Respondents.
Mr. Kudalkar waives service on behalf of the 3rd Respondent.
4. The FIR was filed on 26.10.2025 on the basis of a complaint lodged
by the 3rd Respondent on the same day. The FIR was filed for offences
under Sections 281 and 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS),
2023. Subsequently, on 11.03.2026, the said Chargesheet was filed
under Sections 281 and 125(a) of the BNS as well as Section 134(a)(b)
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act) against the Petitioner as
the sole accused.
5. The brief facts of the case as per the Prosecution are that on
26.10.2025, in front of the office of Dream Skyline Housing Society,
Calvaddo, Navelim, Salcete – Goa, the Petitioner rode his scooter in
a rash and negligent manner within the society premises and dashed
against the 3rd Respondent’s left elbow, causing injuries to him,
following which the Petitioner fled from the spot without providing
medical aid to the 3rd Respondent.
6. Mr. Costa Frias, learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner,
submitted that the complaint and the evidence produced on record
Page 3 of 14
11th September 2026
Mr Arvind Coutinho
vs.
State of Goa and 2 ors.
__________________________________________________
WPCR 178 of 2026
by the prosecution do not make out any ingredient of the offences
under Sections 281 and 125(a) of the BNS and Section 134 of the
M.V. Act. He further submitted that the Prosecution’s entire story is
false and an abuse of the process of law. It is submitted that
admittedly there are disputes between the Petitioner and the 3rd
Respondent. The present complaint and the subsequent criminal case
were filed only to harass the Petitioner. There is no injury caused to
the 3rd Respondent. The hurt certificate makes it clear that no injury
was caused. If that is so, then the invocation of Section 281 and
125(a) of the BNS and Section 134 of the M.V. Act against the
Petitioner is unsustainable and the Petitioner ought not to suffer the
entire trial. Mr. Costa Firas, further submitted that the CCTV footage
of the incident clearly establishes that there was no intention on the
part of the Petitioner to cause any injury to the 3rd Respondent and
that all the allegations of the 3rd Respondent are false. The Petitioner’s
case is that the impugned criminal proceedings are a counterblast to
the earlier complaints and disputes between the parties.
7. On the contrary, Mr. Kudalkar, learned counsel for the 3rd
Respondent that Sections 281 and 125(a) of the BNS are rightly
invoked against the Petitioner. No case is made out to quash the FIR
and the chargesheet. The Petitioner has intentionally caused injury to
Page 4 of 14
11th September 2026
Mr Arvind Coutinho
vs.
State of Goa and 2 ors.
__________________________________________________
WPCR 178 of 2026
the 3rd Respondent. However, it is admitted in the submissions as well
as in the pleadings that there is a dispute between the Petitioner and
the 3rd Respondent in respect of the dumping of garbage in the
society. It is denied that the FIR is a counterblast to the existing
disputes between the Petitioner and the 3rd Respondent.
8. Mr. Vaze, the Addl. Public Prosecutor, submitted that there is a
previous enmity between the Petitioner and the other society
members on the issues related to the functioning of the society. It is
submitted that, as per the complainant, after the incident, 108 and
112 were called, and the 108 ambulance shifted him to the hospital
for treatment, where he collected the hurt certificate from the
hospital, which certified, the injury as ‘simple’ in nature. Accordingly,
Section 125(a) of the BNS is applied to the FIR. Further, during the
course of investigation, the statements of the witnesses were
recorded, who have stated that the Petitioner rode his scooter in a
rash and negligent manner and thus Section 281 of the BNS was
applied to the FIR. It is also submitted that the statements of the
witnesses disclose a rash and negligent act and accordingly the
Sections have been applied to the FIR. It is submitted that
subsequently the chargesheet came to be filed as per the evidence
Page 5 of 14
11th September 2026
Mr Arvind Coutinho
vs.
State of Goa and 2 ors.
__________________________________________________
WPCR 178 of 2026
collected. In light of the same, it is prayed that this Petition be
dismissed.
9. I have heard the rival submissions and also perused the chargesheet.
I have also viewed the CCTV footage of the incident.
10. The CCTV footage clearly depicts the incident and shows how it
occurred. The incident has occurred in the housing society premises.
The left mirror of the Petitioner’s scooter has merely touched the left
elbow of the 3rd Respondent. The footage does not disclose any rash,
reckless or negligent driving, any deliberate/intentional attempt to
hit/injure the 3rd Respondent, or any act undertaken in a manner
endangering human life or the personal safety of any person. The
contact between the Petitioner’s scooter and the 3rd Respondent was
purely accidental and there was no intention whatsoever to cause any
injury to the 3rd Respondent. The Petitioner stopped his vehicle
immediately thereafter.
11. Even if the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during
investigation are taken at their highest, the essential ingredients of
Sections 281 and 125(a) of the BNS are not satisfied. More
importantly, the CCTV footage demonstrates that the incident did
not occur as alleged by the 3rd Respondent and does not disclose the
commission of the alleged offences.
Page 6 of 14
11th September 2026
Mr Arvind Coutinho
vs.
State of Goa and 2 ors.
__________________________________________________
WPCR 178 of 2026
12. Section 281 of the BNS deals with rash driving or riding on a public
way. The essential ingredients which are required to be established
are:
i. that the accused was driving a vehicle or riding on a public
way;
ii. that the vehicle was being driven/ridden in a manner which
was rash or negligent;
iii. that such rash or negligent manner was of such a nature as
to endanger human life; or
iv. that it was likely to cause hurt or injury to another person.
13. In the present case, the material on record does not disclose any
such conduct on the part of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was
admittedly manoeuvring his vehicle within the society premises and
was proceeding at a very slow speed. The contact was only between
the rear-view mirror and the elbow of the 3rd Respondent. There is
no material demonstrating that the Petitioner drove the vehicle at an
excessive speed, drove recklessly, endangered any person, or
adopted any manner of driving which could reasonably be
characterised as rash or negligent. Further, the CCTV footage
objectively demonstrates the actual manner of occurrence. The
footage does not show the Petitioner deliberately riding into the 3rd
Respondent, accelerating towards him, or driving in a dangerous or
Page 7 of 14
11th September 2026
Mr Arvind Coutinho
vs.
State of Goa and 2 ors.
__________________________________________________
WPCR 178 of 2026
reckless manner. Therefore, the foundational requirement of rash
or negligent driving in a manner endangering human life or likely to
cause hurt or injury is conspicuously absent.
14. A mere accidental and incidental contact between a vehicle’s rear-
view mirror and a person’s elbow, without the requisite rash or
negligent manner of driving, cannot by itself constitute an offence
under Section 281 BNS.
15. Section 125 of the BNS deals with an act done so rashly or
negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of
others. Clause (a) applies where hurt is caused. Thus, for Section
125(a) to be attracted, the prosecution must establish:
i. an act committed by the accused;
ii. that such act was done rashly or negligently;
iii. that the act was such as to endanger human life or the
personal safety of others; and
iv. that hurt was caused as a consequence of such rash or
negligent act.
16. In the present case, the essential element of a rash or negligent act
endangering human life or personal safety is totally absent. The
prosecution cannot merely rely upon the fact that there was physical
contact and thereafter infer criminal negligence. The manner in
which the act occurred is material. In the present case, the CCTV
Page 8 of 14
11th September 2026
Mr Arvind Coutinho
vs.
State of Goa and 2 ors.
__________________________________________________
WPCR 178 of 2026
footage provides the best contemporaneous objective depiction of
the incident and clearly shows that the Petitioner committed no
deliberate or dangerous act. The CCTV footage does not depict any
act of the Petitioner which can be characterised as rash or negligent
so as to endanger human life or personal safety.
17. Consequently, the mere allegation of hurt, without the foundational
requirement of a rash or negligent act of the nature contemplated
by Section 125, cannot sustain the prosecution under Section 125(a)
of the BNS. Further, the hurt certificate annexed at page no. 79 of
the petition does not indicate any injury caused to the 3rd
Respondent. Therefore, the ingredients of the offence under
Section 125(a) of the BNS are not satisfied.
18. Section 134 of the M.V. Act prescribes the duty of the driver in case
of an accident and injury to a person. The provision requires the
driver, where a person is injured or third-party property is damaged
as a result of an accident involving a motor vehicle, to take the
prescribed reasonable steps, including securing medical attention for
the injured person and furnishing/reporting the relevant
information to the police in accordance with law.
19. In the present case, apart from the fact that there was no injury
caused to the 3rd Respondent, there is no material demonstrating
Page 9 of 14
11th September 2026
Mr Arvind Coutinho
vs.
State of Goa and 2 ors.
__________________________________________________
WPCR 178 of 2026
that the Petitioner deliberately failed to comply with any statutory
duty contemplated under Section 134 of the M.V. Act. The CCTV
footage also does not depict any conduct on the part of the
Petitioner which would constitute a deliberate failure to comply with
the statutory duties contemplated under Section 134. Consequently,
invocation of Section 134 (a), (b) of the M.V. Act is also
unsustainable on the facts and material placed on record.
20. Thus, the objective material relied upon by the Prosecution itself,
prima facie does not support the essential allegations required to
constitute the offences under Sections 281 and 125(a) of the BNS
and 134 of the M.V. Act. Therefore, I agree with the submission of
Mr. Costa Frias, that the Prosecution evidence is not sufficient for
conviction and that the essential statutory ingredients necessary to
constitute the offence are absent from the material itself. On the
basis of the material on record, I am satisfied that continuing
proceedings against the Petitioner would be an abuse of the process
of law.
21. Further, it is clear from the record that the present FIR has been
lodged in the backdrop of a long-standing dispute between the
Petitioner and the 3rd Respondent relating to the affairs of the
housing society and various complaints concerning garbage, nuisance
Page 10 of 14
11th September 2026
Mr Arvind Coutinho
vs.
State of Goa and 2 ors.
__________________________________________________
WPCR 178 of 2026
and other issues. Admittedly, the Petitioner had made several
complaints before statutory authorities concerning the affairs of the
society. Pursuant to which action was taken against the society, and
thereafter the 3rd Respondent developed animosity towards the
Petitioner. The present FIR must therefore be viewed in its proper
factual context, not as an isolated occurrence.
22. Therefore, I agree with the submissions of Mr. Costa Frias, that the
FIR and the chargesheet ought to be quashed by applying the law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal, [1992 Supp (1) SCC 355]; more particularly its
paragraph 102.
23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 102 of the said judgment
enunciated specific illustrative categories of cases wherein the Court
can exercise its inherent powers to prevent the abuse of the process
of any Court and to secure the ends of justice. The present case
squarely falls within Categories (1), (3), (5) and (7) as formulated by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Categories 1, 3, 5 and 7 read as thus:
“(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
Page 11 of 14
11th September 2026
Mr Arvind Coutinho
vs.
State of Goa and 2 ors.
__________________________________________________
WPCR 178 of 2026
face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused.”
“(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.”
“(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.”
“(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.”
24. The reliance placed by Mr. Kudalkar on the judgement in the case
of Roopchand v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001 (1) MPHT 22 (CG)
Page 12 of 14
11th September 2026
Mr Arvind Coutinho
vs.
State of Goa and 2 ors.
__________________________________________________
WPCR 178 of 2026
is totally out of place and not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
25. In view thereof, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (A),
(C) and (F) quoted as below:
“A) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the
records and proceedings pertaining to FIR No. 84/2025 dated
26/10/2025 registered with Margao Police Station under
Sections 281 and 125(a) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
and after examining the legality and propriety thereof, be pleased
to quash and set aside the said FIR;
C) Quash and set aside all consequential proceedings arising out
of FIR No. 84/2025 including any summons, notices or
further criminal action against the Petitioner;
F) Quash and set aside the charge-sheet No. 33/2026 dated
11/03/2026 filed pursuant to FIR No. 84/2025 and the
criminal case arising therefrom pending before the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class Margao.”
26. This is a fit case in which costs should be imposed on the 3rd
Respondent for abusing the process of law. However, due to the
Page 13 of 14
11th September 2026
Mr Arvind Coutinho
vs.
State of Goa and 2 ors.
__________________________________________________
WPCR 178 of 2026
persuasive skills of Mr. Kudalkar, I have refrained from doing so.
Accordingly, there shall be no order as to costs.
27. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/Personal
Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on the production by
fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
[AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.]
Page 14 of 14
Signed by: VINITA VIKAS NAIK 11th September 2026
Designation: Private Secretary
Date: 11/09/2026 16:35:58
Checking your session…