Dismissed

Sandesh G. Shigaonkar., v. State, Thr. the Police Inspector, Panaji, Police Station, Panaji and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC23 Oct 2018WPCR/79/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an FIR under the Goa Children's Act alleging child abuse. The court observed that the slap was part of a larger altercation involving trespass and assault. It held this was not a fit case for quashing under Section 482 CrPC and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

None; the Criminal Writ Petition was dismissed.

Sandesh G. Shigaonkar., Vs State, Thr. the… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

mukund 1 wpcr-79.18 dt. 23 -10-2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 79 OF 2018

¶4

Sandesh G.Shigaonkar…Petitioner
 Versus

¶5

State Through the Police Inspector,
Panaji and others.….Respondents

¶6

Mr. T.George John, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Pravin N. Faldessai, Additional Government Advocate for the
Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶8

Mr. V.Naik, Advocate for the Respondent no.3.

¶9

Coram : N.M. Jamdar & Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ.

¶10

Date : 23 October 2018.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

This Petition is filed for quashing the First Information
Report No.9 of 2015 dated 6 January 2015 filed against the Petitioner.
The Complainant filed a Complaint to the Police Station on
6 January 2015. A statement was also given by the Complainant.
According to the Complainant, he was residing with his family, his
son and married daughter and the Petitioner along with two other
persons came to meet his daughter. The Petitioner created disturbance

¶13

mukund 2 wpcr-79.18 dt. 23 -10-2018

¶14

at the gate and started shouting in loud noise. The Petitioner was
holding a stone in his hand to hit the stone on gate lock and the
Petitioner hit on the gate and after pushing the gate he came inside
and he pushed his daughter and slapped the minor son. He also tried
to hit the Complainant with the stone but his daughter intervened, he
left the spot. Upon this complaint, offences were registered against the
Petitioner under Sections 447, 325, 427 read with Section 341 of
Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Goa Children's Act.

¶15

2.The learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that all
that is alleged against the Petitioner is that he slapped the child and
such a single slap will not amount to an offence under the Goa
Children's Act, 2003.

¶16

3.The slap is not an isolated incident. It is alleged that the
Petitioner committed criminal trespass, tried to assault the family
members of the Child, pushed his mother aside and tried to hit the
grandfather. As a part of the altercation that he slapped the child.

¶17

4. The definition of the `Child Abuse' under the Goa
Children's Act, 2003 is comprehensive and would take into an ambit
such actions as well. Therefore, in the facts of this case, we cannot
accede the contentions that there are no ingredients of Section 8 of the

¶18

mukund 3 wpcr-79.18 dt. 23 -10-2018

¶19

Goa Children's Act in the complaint alleged against the Petitioner.
No other submission was advanced.

¶20

5.We are of the opinion that this is not a fit case to exercise
the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
Criminal Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. We make it clear that
the above observations were made in the context of the exercise of this
jurisdiction and the trial will be conducted on its own merits.

¶21

Prithviraj K. Chavan, J. N.M. Jamdar, J.

Sandesh G. Shigaonkar., v. State, Thr. the Police Inspector, Panaji, Police Station, Panaji and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandesh G. Shigaonkar., v. State, Thr. the Police Inspector, Panaji, Police Station, Panaji and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The All Goa Government Pensioners Association Rep. by Its President V.V. Vernekar and 2 Ors., Vs State of Goa, through Its Chief Secretary.

Aleixo Arnolfo Pereira., Vs Verna Police Station, Thr. Its Investigating Officer, Verna and 4 Ors.

Surendra Appa Shirodkar., Vs Bank of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Auth. Officer and Chief Manager and Anr.

Sandesh G. Shigaonkar., Vs State, Thr. the Police Inspector, Panaji, Police Station, Panaji and 2 Ors.

Sanofi India Ltd., Thr. Its True and Lawful Attorney, Abhijit Yadav., Vs Goa Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (G.I.D.C.), Thr. Its Managing Director and Anr.

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji., Vs Elegance Properties Pvt. Ltd.