Bombay High Court
GAURAV BAKSHIversusSTATE OF GOA THR THE POLICE INSPECTOR AND ANR
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Court held that the alleged abusive words and threats did not satisfy the statutory ingredients of Sections 132, 352 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and therefore the FIR, charge‑sheet and ensuing proceedings must be quashed as an abuse of process.
Summary
The Bombay High Court, Goa Bench, quashed FIR No.182/2025, the accompanying charge‑sheet and the criminal proceedings against Gaurav Bakshi. The petitioner was accused under Sections 132, 352 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for allegedly abusing and threatening a Mamlatdar while he was performing official duties. The petitioner contended that the alleged words did not amount to assault, criminal force or intimidation and that the statutory ingredients of the said sections were absent. The Court examined the definitions of force, criminal force and assault under Sections 128‑130 and held that mere abusive language and a threat to lodge a vigilance complaint do not satisfy the elements of the offences. Consequently, the Court found the continuation of the case to be an abuse of process and exercised its inherent powers to quash the FIR, charge‑sheet and all related proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner’s abusive language and threat constitute an offence under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the conduct amounts to an offence under Section 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the conduct amounts to criminal intimidation under Section 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings should be quashed on the ground of lack of statutory ingredients and abuse of process.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 128, 129, 130, 132, 351, 352
Subjects
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 132
- Section 352
- Section 351
- criminal intimidation
- abuse of process
- quash FIR
- public servant
- assault
- criminal force
- high court writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-GOA:1659 Gaurav Bakshi.
vs.
State of Goa Thr. The Police Inpsector and Anr.
__________________________________________________
WPCR.58/2026
Siddhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 58 OF 2026
Mr. Gaurav Bakshi
S/o. B S Bakshi
49 years of age, Indian National
R/o. B 402, Martins Palm Fringe,
Cardozo Waddo, Behind SBI
Taleigao Branch, Caranzalem,
North Goa, Goa, 403002 …PETITIONER
~ VERSUS ~
1. State of Goa
Through The Police Inspector
Panaji Police Station
Panaji Goa
2. Mr. Dattaprasad Toraskar
C/o. Office of the Mamlatdar
Of Tiswadi Taluka, Panaji Goa …RESPONDENTS
A PPEARANCES :
For the Petitioner. Mr. Digaj Bene.
For the Respondent No.1. Ms. Swati Kamat Wagh, Additional Public
Prosecutor.
CORAM : AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : 13th August 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON 18th August 2026.
Page 1 of 12
August 13th 2026
Gaurav Bakshi.
vs.
State of Goa Thr. The Police Inpsector and Anr.
__________________________________________________
WPCR.58/2026
ORDER
1. By the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.
182/2025, registered by the Panaji Police Station, Panaji – Goa. The
Petitioner also seeks quashing of the Chargesheet No. 10/2026 and
the subsequent Criminal Case No. IPC/29/2026/F filed before the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class ‘F’ Court (the JMFC) at
Merces pursuant to the said FIR. Additionally, the Petitioner also
seeks quashing of the Order dated 9th March 2026 passed by the
JMFC taking cognisance and issuing process against the Petitioner in
the said criminal case.
2. Heard Mr. Digaj Bene, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioner and Ms. Swati Kamat Wagh, Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of the State, i.e. the 1st Respondent.
3. Though the 2nd Respondent has been served twice, none appears
from the 2nd Respondent. It was made clear on the earlier occasion
that the matters shall be heard finally at the admission stage. In view
thereof, I have proceeded to hear the matter finally.
4. The FIR was lodged on 12th December 2025 by the Panaji P.S., for
offences under Sections 132, 352, and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita (the BNS), 2023. The FIR was lodged on the basis of a
Page 2 of 12
August 13th 2026
Gaurav Bakshi.
vs.
State of Goa Thr. The Police Inpsector and Anr.
__________________________________________________
WPCR.58/2026
complaint dated 12th December 2025 filed by the 2nd Respondent
against the Petitioner. Subsequently, on 9th February 2026, the said
Chargesheet was filed under Sections 132, 352, and 351(3) of the
BNS. The Petitioner is the sole accused.
5. The case of the Prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 12th December
2025 at the office of the Mamlatdar of Tiswadi Taluka, Panaji – Goa,
the Petitioner approached the 2nd Respondent while he was
performing his official duties, in connection with his file pertaining
to conversion of use of land, and abused the 2nd Respondent with
filthy language. It is further the case that while the 2 nd Respondent
attempted to explain to him, the Petitioner threatened the 2nd
Respondent with dire consequences and said that “I will show you”, “I
will see that you lose your job by registering vigilance case against you”, and as
such the Petitioner created disturbance in the office, causing breach
of peace and obstructing the 2nd Respondent while performing his
official duties.
6. Case of the Petitioner:
a. It is the case of the Petitioner that even if the allegations made
in the FIR and the chargesheet are accepted in their entirety, the
essential ingredients of Sections 132, 352 and 351(3) of the
BNS are not made out.
Page 3 of 12
August 13th 2026
Gaurav Bakshi.
vs.
State of Goa Thr. The Police Inpsector and Anr.
__________________________________________________
WPCR.58/2026
b. The Petitioner submits that in order to attract Section 132 of
the BNS, there must exist assault or use of criminal force against
a public servant to prevent or deter that person from discharging
his lawful duty. It is further submitted that the definition of
‘force’ under Section 128 of the BNS clearly shows that there
can be said force, to use of only when one makes another to
cause motion, change of motion or cessation of motion in one
of the three ways expressly provided therein, i.e. by his own
bodily power or by disposing any substance in such a manner
that the motion or change or cessation of motion takes place
and inducing any animal to move to change its motion or to
cease to move. In the absence of adoption of any one of the
three ways, or in the absence of causing motion, change or
cessation thereof, the above definition would not attract.
c. The Petitioner submits that ‘criminal force’ as defined in Section
129 of the BNS indicates that whoever intentionally uses force
to any person, without that person’s consent, in order to commit
any offence or intending by the use of such force to cause or
knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause
injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is
used, is said to use criminal force to that other. It is therefore
Page 4 of 12
August 13th 2026
Gaurav Bakshi.
vs.
State of Goa Thr. The Police Inpsector and Anr.
__________________________________________________
WPCR.58/2026
submitted that when the ingredients of Section 128 are absent,
Section 129 cannot come into play. In other words, when there
is absence of force altogether, there cannot be any criminal
force attributable.
d. The Petitioner further submits that the definition of ‘assault’
under Section 130 of the BNS indicates that whoever makes any
gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely
that such gesture or preparation will cause a person to
apprehend that he is about to use criminal force to that person
is said to commit an assault. According to the explanation
thereto, mere words do not amount to an assault, but the words
which a person uses may give to his gestures or preparation such
a meaning as may make those gestures amount to an assault.
Upon reading Section 130 with illustrations, it can be concluded
that, in order to constitute that to be an assault, the Section
indicates that there has to be a clear intention appearing from
the gesture that the person is intending to cause to believe that
he is about to strike the other.
e. It is pointed out that there is no allegation in the FIR of any
assault upon the 2nd Respondent. There is no allegation that the
Petitioner used any criminal force against the 2nd Respondent.
Page 5 of 12
August 13th 2026
Gaurav Bakshi.
vs.
State of Goa Thr. The Police Inpsector and Anr.
__________________________________________________
WPCR.58/2026
There is no allegation of pushing, touching, catching hold of,
manhandling or any other physical act against the 2nd
Respondent. The allegation, therefore, is essentially of an
exchange of words, abusive language and an alleged threat to
approach the vigilance authorities.
f. It is submitted that mere use of abusive language, speaking
loudly or rudely, or expressing an intention to complain against
a public servant does not, by itself, constitute assault or criminal
force. In the absence of the essential ingredients of Section 132
of the BNS, the said provision is not attracted in the present
case and the continuation of the proceedings against the
Petitioner for the said offence would amount to an abuse of the
process of law.
g. With respect to Section 352 of the BNS, the Petitioner submits
that the essential ingredients of the section are not made out in
the present case. Mere use of abusive or insulting words,
without the intention to provoke the person insulted to cause a
breach of peace or commit any other offence, would not
constitute the said offence. In the present case, there is no
allegation that the alleged words were used by the Petitioner with
Page 6 of 12
August 13th 2026
Gaurav Bakshi.
vs.
State of Goa Thr. The Police Inpsector and Anr.
__________________________________________________
WPCR.58/2026
any intention to provoke the 2nd Respondent to cause a breach
of peace or to commit any offence.
h. The Petitioner further submits that the only allegation of use of
words is “I will show you” and “I will see that you lose your job by
registering vigilance case against you.” There is no allegation
whatsoever of any intimidation by threat to cause death or
grievous hurt or any other ingredient of Section 351(3) of the
BNS.
i. The Petitioner submits that to constitute the offence of criminal
intimidation, there must be a threat of injury to the person,
reputation or property of the person threatened, coupled with
an intention to cause alarm to that person, or to compel such
person to do an act which he is not legally bound to do, or to
omit an act which he is legally entitled to do.
7. Mr. Bene, learned counsel for the Petitioner, has relied on the
following judgments in support of his submissions: Amer Khan v.
State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 818; Paresh
S/o Ramchandra Kothari v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.,
Criminal Application (APL) No. 1114/2022, Bombay High Court, Nagpur
Bench; Ashish S/o Yuvraj Shinde v. State of Maharashtra and
Anr., Criminal Writ Petition No. 1288/2017, Bombay High Court,
Page 7 of 12
August 13th 2026
Gaurav Bakshi.
vs.
State of Goa Thr. The Police Inpsector and Anr.
__________________________________________________
WPCR.58/2026
Aurangabad Bench; Fakruddin Ahmad Lohar v. State of
Maharashtra and Anr., 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 6606; Vivekanand
D. Gupta v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., Writ Petition No.
2898/2019; Sudhir Kumar v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal
Application (APL) No. 209/2025; Manoj v. State of Kerala and Anr.,
Crl. M.C. No. 4290/2019, Kerala High Court; K. Dhananjay v.
Cabinet Secretary and Ors., SLP (Crl.) No. 5905/2022, Supreme
Court; B. N. John v. State of U.P. and Anr., SLP (Crl.) No.
2184/2024, 2025 INSC 4.
8. Ms Kamat vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the
Petitioner has a habit of committing such acts. The behaviour of the
Petitioner with the public servant has not been in accordance with
law. The record establishes that the Petitioner has committed offences
as mentioned in the charge sheet and at this stage the Petitioner ought
not to be granted any relief. She submitted that the Petitioner should
face the trial.
9. I have heard the parties and have perused the record, including the
charge sheet and the related documents.
10. I am satisfied that even if all the statements made in the complaint
filed by the 2nd Respondent are accepted in their entirety, they do not
Page 8 of 12
August 13th 2026
Gaurav Bakshi.
vs.
State of Goa Thr. The Police Inpsector and Anr.
__________________________________________________
WPCR.58/2026
disclose any threat of physical injury, injury to reputation or injury to
property.
11. The alleged words also do not disclose any intention on the part of
the Petitioner to cause alarm to the 2nd Respondent. There is no
allegation that the 2nd Respondent was put in a state of sudden fear
or apprehension of any immediate danger to his person, reputation
or property. The allegation that the Petitioner would approach the
vigilance authorities or lodge a complaint against the 2nd Respondent
cannot, by itself, amount to criminal intimidation. A person
informing another that he would take recourse to a lawful remedy
cannot be treated as threatening that person with injury within the
meaning of Section 351(3) of the BNS.
12. Further, it is submitted that the prosecution also relies upon the
allegation that the Petitioner disturbed the peaceful working of the
office and obstructed the 2nd Respondent in discharge of his official
duties. However, the mere use of rude or abusive words, or an
argument between two persons, cannot automatically result in
criminal liability unless the statutory ingredients of the particular
offence are satisfied.
13. In addition, the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had already filed
a complaint dated 6th February 2025 against the 2nd Respondent
Page 9 of 12
August 13th 2026
Gaurav Bakshi.
vs.
State of Goa Thr. The Police Inpsector and Anr.
__________________________________________________
WPCR.58/2026
before the competent authorities regarding dereliction of duty,
harassment and demanded disciplinary proceedings for violation of
CCS Conduct Rules. The present FIR was thereafter lodged by the
2nd Respondent against the Petitioner on 12th December 2025. The
chronology assumes significance because the 2nd Respondent, who
was already the subject matter of a complaint made by the Petitioner,
subsequently became the complainant in the present criminal case.
The existence of the earlier complaint, therefore, provides the
necessary background to the present prosecution and demonstrates
that the FIR cannot be viewed in isolation. Therefore, I am accepting
all the submissions made by Mr. Bene on behalf of the Petitioner as
narrated in paragraph 6 hereinabove and reject the submissions made
on behalf the State.
14. Considering the material on record, I am satisfied that it would be
unfair and contrary to the interests of justice to continue the criminal
proceedings, and their continuation would amount to an abuse of
process. Therefore, I am exercising the inherent powers to quash the
FIR and the charge sheet registered against the Petitioner.
15. In view thereof, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a),
(a.1), (a.2) and (a.3) quoted as below:
Page 10 of 12
August 13th 2026
Gaurav Bakshi.
vs.
State of Goa Thr. The Police Inpsector and Anr.
__________________________________________________
WPCR.58/2026
(a) Issue order or direction to quash and set aside the FIR bearing No.
182/2025 and the complaint registered at Panaji Police Station,
Panaji, Goa pursuant to which the said FIR is registered as against
the Petitioner;
(a.1) Issue order or direction to quash and set aside Chargesheet bearing
number 10/2026 filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at
Merces Goa, pursuant to the aforesaid FIR and registered as Criminal
Case No.IPC/29/2026/F;
(a.2) Issue order or direction to quash and set aside the Order dated
09/03/2026 passed by the learned Magistrate at Merces taking
cognizance and issuing process against the petitioner in Criminal Case
No. IPC/29/2026/F;
(a.3) Issue order or direction to quash and set aside all further and
consequential proceedings arising out of F.I.R. No. 182/2025,
including Criminal Case No. 29/2026/F pending before Ld.
J.M.F.C at Merces, Goa;
16. No order as to costs.
Page 11 of 12
August 13th 2026
Gaurav Bakshi.
vs.
State of Goa Thr. The Police Inpsector and Anr.
__________________________________________________
WPCR.58/2026
17. 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 12 of 12
Signed by: SHAKUNTALA ZALMI August 13th 2026
Designation: Personal Assistant
Date: 19/08/2026 11:32:21
Checking your session…