Dismissed

Anju @ Anjali Vinodkumar Agarwa v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Sept 2014WP/2283/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the maintenance of an FIR alleging human trafficking and sexual assault was heard. The petitioner sought to quash the FIR based on delay and jurisdictional grounds. The Court held that the FIR discloses serious offences including human trafficking with part of the cause of action in India, precluding quashing at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Leave to withdraw petition denied; writ petition dismissed holding no case for quashing the FIR.

Anju @ Anjali Vinodkumar Agarwa Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP. 2283-14

¶2

VPH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 2283 OF 2014

¶5

Anju @ Anjali Vinodkumar Agarwal ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents ***

¶6

Mr. Prabhanjay R. Dave, for the Petitioner. Mr. J. P. Yagnik, APP for Respondent.

¶7

Mr. Padve, API, Khar Police Station present.

¶8

¶9

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & P. D. KODE, JJ.

¶10

DATE : SEPTEMBER 4, 2014 PC.

¶11

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. After the petition was argued for almost 45 minutes and we have shown our disinclination to entertain the petition, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the petition. We decline to grant the leave to withdraw the petition. The Petitioner has filed this petition for quashing of the FIR, which is registered with Respondent No. 1 - Khar Police Station under Section 406, 420 and 376 read with 34 of the I. P. Code on the complaint, which was lodged

on 11.1.2014.

1 / 7

WP. 2283-14

The gist of the complaint is that complainant met the

¶16

Petitioner through one Renuka Agrawal, who is her friend. She met the Petitioner in May 2013 at Khar (West), Mumbai. A representation was made by said Renuka Agrawal that the Petitioner had a boutique at Khar Mumbai and she also had a shop in Dubai. The complainant claims that she met the Petitioner twice outside her shop. It is alleged that the complainant did not have any work and she was without a job. It is alleged in the complaint that the Petitioner made a representation that she required a sales-girl for her shop in Dubai. The petitioner offered her the said job and agreed to pay Rs. 4 lakhs per month, apart from providing her food and accommodation expenses. Then it is alleged that the Petitioner gave Rs. 10 lakhs towards all the expenses, out of which Rs.5 lakhs was paid in cash. In the complaint it is alleged that when she was going to Dubai, there were three other girls alongwith the Petitioner and she was told that these girls will also work in the exhibition, which was to be held in Dubai. It is then alleged that when they reached Dubai, Petitioner took the passport of all the three girls in her custody and they were picked up by one lady on the airport and they were taken in taxi at the Petitioner's flat on 15 or 17^th floor in Hayat Apartment at Dera. All of them were given

¶17

2 / 7

¶18

WP. 2283-14

¶19

separate rooms. It is alleged that on 2^nd June, 2013 when complainant demanded her passport, her passport was not returned. In the evening four persons came to the apartment and the Petitioner informed the complainant that one of them had selected her and he will pay 3000 Dirham. When she protested, she was forced to have sexual intercourse with the a person. Petitioner then threatened the complainant that she knew everyone in Dubai and that if she makes any complaint, she would kill her. Thereafter, it is alleged that between 3.6.2013 to 27.6.2013 about 12-13 persons, who were sent by the Petitioner, had raped the complainant against her wish. Petitioner and friend Taniya assaulted the complainant when she refused to go with said persons. She has then alleged that on 27.6.2013 Petitioner gave passport to the complainant and one Moitra and when they went to the airport, they came to know that their air ticket was cancelled and they had been issued air ticket of 5^th July, 2013. Complainant stayed during this period with her friend Mr. Anup and returned back on 5.7.2013 at Mumbai. Thereafter a complaint was lodged.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, firstly, submitted that there is a delay of 7 months in lodging the complaint.

¶21

3 / 7

¶22

WP. 2283-14

¶23

Secondly, it is submitted that all the incidents had taken place at Dubai, and therefore, since the cause of action had arisen in Dubai, no complaint can be lodged in India. It is submitted that Respondent No. 2 had a filed complaint against four other persons and different versions have been given by her in the complaints against the said four persons. She has then submitted that the Petitioner is a respectable citizen of this country, having her own shop and she is a tax payer and she has been visiting Dubai for almost for 25 years. It is submitted that Petitioner has been falsely implicated by the Respondent No. 2 only with an intention to cause extortion to the Petitioner. It is submitted that complainant had stayed at Dubai till 5^th July, 2013 alongwith her friend Anup and no complaint was made by her to him against the Petitioner. It is submitted that these facts clearly disclose that fictitious complaint has been filed. We are unable to accept the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner. Law relating to quashing of FIR, while exercising writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution and / or under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is quite well settled. A complaint can be quashed, firstly, if the complaint read as a whole does not disclose commission of offence; secondly, if there is a legal bar for filing the complaint; thirdly, if no legal evidence is found

¶24

4 / 7

¶25

WP. 2283-14

¶26

against the accused. These three grounds have been re-classified into 7-8 grounds by the Apex Court in the case of - State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal [AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604] . At this stage, therefore, this Court, firstly, cannot look into other documents on which reliance is placed by the counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Secondly, this Court cannot go into the facts and decide whether the statement made by the complainant is correct or false, or on the basis of other circumstances come to the conclusion that the statement which is given by the complainant is false. It is duty of the police to record the FIR, if it discloses commission of cognizable offence. The question of jurisdiction or delay caused in filing the complaint, cannot be entertained by this Court at this stage. These are the questions which will have to be gone into only during the trial, not even at the stage when discharge application is filed. Even at the stage of an application for discharge, after charge-sheet is filed, the power which can be exercised by the Court is very limited. The Court has to see whether the material on record is sufficient to create suspicion in the mind of the trial Court about commission of offence. The Court is not expected to sift and weigh the material to find out whether accused could be convicted on the basis of such material.

¶27

5 / 7

¶28

WP. 2283-14

¶29

In the present case the facts disclose very serious allegations, which are made in the complaint. It is alleged that Respondent No. 2 was lured by the Petitioner on the pretext of giving her job in Dubai, and thereafter she was actually trafficked illegally on false assurance and she was raped continuously till 27.6.2013 by about 12-13 persons. She had also been assaulted when she refused to accept the command given by the Petitioner. Though some of the incidents have taken place in Dubai, part of cause of action has arisen in the Mumbai where representation was made and assurance was given to the complainant that she would be given a decent job in Dubai and on that assurance she was taken to Dubai where she was systematically exploited. The allegation, therefore, is of human trafficking, which is a serious, cognizable offence, and therefore, in our view the Khar Police Station was perfectly justified in registering the offence, and in our view, part of the cause of action having arisen at Khar, in view of Section 177 and 178 Cr. P. C., the Courts in India, and more particularly, the Khar Police Station, obviously, has the authority and jurisdiction to investigate the crime. If the complaint of this nature is quashed on frivolous submissions, which are made across the bar, that itself would be an abuse of process of law. In our

¶30

6 / 7

¶31

WP. 2283-14

¶32

view, there is absolutely no substance in the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner. At this stage, it is not possible to even consider the other complaints, which allegedly have been filed by Respondent No. 2 against other persons; or whether her place of residence is known or unknown; or address which she has given is correct or false. All these questions will have to be gone into during the trial, if charge-sheet is filed. It is immaterial whether Petitioner is a tax payer and has a shop at Khar (West). It is possible that the said shop may be used for the purpose of carrying out all these activities of human trafficking, and therefore, we feel that police should thoroughly investigate the crime and ensure that no innocent women / girls are lured and trafficked in this manner. We are, therefore, of the view that no case is made out for quashing of the complaint. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

¶33

[P. D. KODE, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.]

¶34

Vinayak Halemath

¶35

7 / 7

Anju @ Anjali Vinodkumar Agarwa v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anju @ Anjali Vinodkumar Agarwa v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Bhau Daji Patil (Since Deceased) and Others Vs Rajaram Mane and Others

Bhosale Anilkumar Vasantrao Vs Mr. R. D. Shinde, Secretary and Ors.

Bhosale Anilkumar Vasantrao Vs Mr. R. D. Shinde, Secretary and Ors.

Kanchan Tataya Nandale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S. Digicine Manoranjan Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Abdul Ali Abdul Samad Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.