Society office-bearers sought quashing of an FIR alleging wrongful restraint and assault on a neighbouring owner using the society's gates as his only access. The court found categorical allegations of restraint and assault disclosing offences and declined to conduct a mini trial on the underlying property dispute.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024:BHC-AS:28263-DB
rdg 74-APL-273-2024-J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 273 OF 2024
Vs.
1/8
rdg 74-APL-273-2024-J.doc
Mr. Milind Dhande i/by Ms. Jameela Damani, with Ms. Divya Tiwari for the Applicants.
Smt. Madhavi H. Mhatre, APP, for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Hrishikesh Giri with Mr. Swapnil Chopade, for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND DR NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 3rd JULY, 2024.
JUDGMENT :- (Per Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.)
all the parties, the Petition is heard finally.
3.1) It is the complainant’s contention that he has obtained all the
2/8
rdg 74-APL-273-2024-J.doc
necessary permissions from the Competent Authorities to use and occupy the said place for commercial purposes. Hence he started renovation work in the said property. The complainant states that, when his workers undertook the renovation work at the site, the Petitioners forcefully restrained the workers from doing their job. The Petitioners then called up the main control room after which the police temporarily stopped the renovation work in order to maintain peace.
3.2) Again on 3rd December 2023, when the complainant’s wife went upon their property, the gates of the Society were locked. Thereafter, when she enquired about the same, it was informed to her that, she along with her family members and other staff were prohibited from passing through the society gates and carrying out any renovation works. When the complainant approached the Petitioners with an intent to resolve the issues, the Petitioners physically assaulted him. This led to the filing of the F.I.R. impugned herein.
3/8
rdg 74-APL-273-2024-J.doc
requesting the copies of original sale/title deeds to verify the ownership, however the same was unattended by the complainant. Stating this, the Counsel for the Petitioners has drawn our attention to the existence of the civil dispute pending regarding the said property.
4.1) Smt. Mhatre, the learned APP supports the contentions made in the F.I.R. impugned. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 opposed the Petition. He submitted that the Respondent No.2-complainant already had procured all the necessary permissions from the Competent Authorities to use and occupy the premises for commercial purpose. The Respondent No.2-complainant had no other approach to his property except from the premises of the Society. He thus submitted that, there are no merits in the Petition and it may be dismissed.
“12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To
1 (2006) 6 SCC 736: 2006 INSC 452.
4/8
rdg 74-APL-273-2024-J.doc
mention a few—Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [(1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234] , State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [(1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059] , Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [(1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045] , State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996) 8 SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628] , Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [(1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401] , Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615] , Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786] , M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [(2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19] and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283] . The principles, relevant to our purpose are:
(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.
5/8
rdg 74-APL-273-2024-J.doc
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.
furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash
6/8
rdg 74-APL-273-2024-J.doc
the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.
7/8
rdg 74-APL-273-2024-J.doc
ownership of the said property, at this stage we cannot hold a mini trial of the case in our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Petitioners are at liberty to agitate their defense by availing alternate remedy under the Code, if so advised.
8.1) In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation in holding that, this is not a case justifying quashing the F.I.R. Having thus heard all the parties on merits, we are not inclined to quash the criminal proceedings against the Petitioners.
discharged.
(DR NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
8/8
Signed by: Raju D. Gaikwad Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 18/07/2024 21:03:10
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR registered as C.R.No.1039 of 2023 with Khar Police Station against the petitioners should be quashed under the High Court's inherent powers.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited and OthersRelied on¶5
(2006) 6 SCC 736: 2006 INSC 452 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Shahabuddin Shaikh
Pravin Sajnani
Aditya Deepak Anand
Delvin Lobo @ David
Clyde Savio Fernandes
State of Maharashtra
A. S. Gadkari
Dr. Neela Gokhale
As recorded by the court registry
4 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
