Applicants sought quashing of an extortion FIR lodged after demands of Rs.50 lakhs backed by threats of a false sexual-harassment complaint against a police constable. Investigation record corroborated the allegations. The court held no mini-trial is permissible at the quashing stage and dismissed the application.
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.
rdg 1-apl-904-2024-J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.904 OF 2024
1/11
rdg 1-apl-904-2024-J.doc
Mr. Abhishek Kulkarni with Mr. Sagar Wakale, for the Applicants. Smt. Madhavi H. Mhatre, APP, for Respondent No.1-State.
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND DR NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. RESERVED ON : 20th SEPTEMBER, 2024. PRONOUNCED ON : 1st OCTOBER, 2024.
JUDGMENT :- (Per Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.)
2.1) It is the case of the First Informant, i.e., Respondent No.2 that, he is a Police Hawaldar and was serving in the Crime Branch of Naupada Police Station, Thane, from the year 2007-2015. He became acquainted with the Thakre family, i.e., Applicants herein, as they were introduced to him by a senior Officer in relation to some work of taking admission for the Applicant No.3 herein, i.e., a minor daughter of Applicants No.1 and 2.
2.2) The Applicant No.1 and the Respondent No.2 kept meeting each other in the context of searching for a house property as both of them were looking to purchase new residential accommodation. It is alleged that on 2nd February 2024 the Applicant No.1 invited the Respondent No.2 to her house. She introduced him to her minor daughter, Riya (Applicant No.3)
2/11
rdg 1-apl-904-2024-J.doc
who was then studying in 10th Standard. After some discussion, the Respondent No.2 left their house and went home.
2.3) On 4th February 2024, the Applicants No.1 and 3 came to the house of the Respondent No.2 along with Riya's friend. All of sudden, the Applicant No.1 started accusing the Respondent No.2 that, he had molested her daughter Riya on 2nd February 2024 when he had visited their house. The Respondent No.2 was shocked at this accusation and refuted the same. The Applicant No.1 however, angrily abused the Respondent No.2 and threatened him that she would make a complaint against him of sexual harassment to her minor daughter Riya (Applicant No.3) with the Police.
2.4) On 8th February 2024, the Applicants again called the Respondent No.2 to meet them near the Perfect Motor Driving School. When he went to meet them, the Applicants were accompanied by some other people as well. They demanded an amount of Rs.50 Lakhs from him failing which they threatened to implicate him in a false case of sexually harassing the minor daughter, Riya. They further threatened that, they would ensure that the Respondent No.2 would lose his job due to it. They also beat him up with fist blows and kicks on his face, stomach, chest and back. They further threatened dire consequences to his wife and son. The Respondent No.2 pleaded with them and repeatedly denied having done anything untoward to Applicant No.3 and also requested them not to falsely implicate him in such accusations.
3/11
rdg 1-apl-904-2024-J.doc
2.5) On 9th February 2024, the Applicants once against beat up the Respondent No.2 and his wife and forced him to write some statements on a Rs.100/- stamp-paper. They then took the paper to be notarized before one Notary namely, Advocate Gole. The Applicants even convinced Advocate Gole to attest the paper. On 22nd February 2024, the Applicant No.1 called the Respondent No.2 on mobile phone and said that she and her husband wanted to meet him. When the Respondent No.2 went to meet them, once again they renewed the demand of Rs.50 Lakhs failing which, they threatened to file a false criminal complaint against him. They also blackmailed him with stamp-paper. The Respondent No.2's wife also pleaded with the Applicants that he had not done any wrong to Applicant No.3.
2.6) On 26th February 2024, the Applicant No.1 called the Respondent No.2 on his mobile phone and said that instead of giving Rs.50 Lakhs to her, the Respondent No.2 should incur expenditure for the medical education of Applicant No.3 as she wanted to study medicine abroad. She again renewed her threats. The Respondent No.2 being fed up with these demands of extortion and threats of false complaint, inquired with one Shri Pankaj Mehta, the Secretary of Swarna Society in which the Applicants resided and he learnt that in 2015 the Applicant No.1 had also implicated another member of the society namely, one Shri Chalke by falsely accusing him of sexually harassing minor daughter Riya. He also learnt that, the said
4/11
rdg 1-apl-904-2024-J.doc
Chalke was frightened of the Thakre family and was compelled to leave the society along with his family. In these circumstances, the Respondent No.2 filed the impugned FIR alleging that, the Applicants have committed the offence of extortion and other offences, as alleged.
5/11
rdg 1-apl-904-2024-J.doc
investigation. She submitted that, the investigation is completed and Final Report is ready to be filed in the jurisdictionally competent Court. The Final Report contains the seizure panchanama of the memory card of the mobile phone from which the threats to falsely implicate the Respondent No.2 in the criminal case were made. There is also transcript of the said entire conversation between the parties. Smt. Mhatre also pointed to voice sample panchanama to contend that, the same established the voices in the phone conversation to be that of the Applicant No.1 and the Respondent No.2. She thus urged the Court to dismiss the Application since there is sufficient evidence to indict the Applicants in the present crime.
6/11
rdg 1-apl-904-2024-J.doc
and was under pressure while signing the paper. Mr. Mehta also corroborates the allegation of the Respondent No.2 in the FIR regarding the Applicant No.1 having threatened another society resident in a similar manner. Most importantly, the transcript of the mobile phone conversation between Applicant No.1 and Respondent No.2 clearly corroborates the allegation of extortion of huge amount made by the Respondent No.2. The Applicant No.1 is clearly found to have demanded Rs.50 Lakhs or entire expenditure of Applicant No.3’s medical education abroad, failing which she threatened to implicate the Respondent No.2 in a false criminal case and ensure that he goes to jail. Thus, prima facie the record of investigation demonstrates commission of the offence as alleged by the Respondent No.2. 7) Mr. Kulkarni tried to argue that the FIR was false and was only a counterblast to an earlier complaint made by the Applicants against the Respondent No.2. In our view, this can only be a probable defence of the Applicants to be put forth in the ensuing trial. Prima-facie, the record of investigation as shown to us discloses commission of cognizable offences as alleged. It is unfortunate that the Applicants have tried to use their minor daughter, i.e., Applicant No.3 herein as a pawn to extort money from the Respondent No.2 as well as from another resident in the society.
1 2023 SCC OnLine (SC) 379.
7/11
rdg 1-apl-904-2024-J.doc
law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. At the stage of quashing of FIR/Criminal Proceedings, the prosecution/investigating agency is not required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution/investigating agency. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not.
“6. Whether the testimony of the witnesses is trustworthy or not has to be found out from the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of the witnesses when they stand in the box at the stage of such trial.
2 MANU/SCOR/113641/2023.
8/11
rdg 1-apl-904-2024-J.doc
the proceedings only if it finds that taking the case at its face value, no case is made out at all.”
9/11
rdg 1-apl-904-2024-J.doc
reason for delay as stated in the statement is that, he was in Italy at that time and decided to ponder upon the situation. It is during this period that, the extortion demands were made. Hence without commenting on the veracity of the sexual harassment allegation, it prima facie appears that, Applicants tried to encash on the circumstances. We are not examining the veracity of the allegation of sexual harassment in this Petition. We are only dealing with the allegations of extortion by the Respondent No.2, which prima facie appear to be true and inspires confidence in the mind of this Court. It also appears to us that, all the Applicants in connivance with each other and with common intention indulged into commission of the present crime.
“13…...This Court in catena of judgments has consistently held that at the time of examining the prayer for quashing of the criminal proceedings, the Court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction can neither undertake to conduct a mini trial, nor enter into appreciation of evidence of a
3 2024 INSC 357
10/11
rdg 1-apl-904-2024-J.doc
position, in our inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., we are only required to examine existence of a prima facie cognizable offence whether disclosed in the FIR or otherwise. In the present case, we have perused the F.I.R. and the record of investigation which on the face of it indicates sufficient material to hold disclosure of commission of cognizable offence.
14.1) The Original Record of investigation is returned to the APP for its onward transmission to the Investigating Officer.
(DR NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (A. S. GADKARI, J.)
Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI SHAMBHAVI NILESH NILESH SHIVGAN SHIVGAN Date: 2024.10.01 18:58:06 +0530
11/11
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR alleging extortion by threats of a false sexual harassment complaint should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the counterblast defence against the FIR can be examined at the quashing stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan SinghRelied on¶8
2023 SCC OnLine (SC) 379 · Who else cites this
Manik v. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy & Anr.Relied on¶9
MANU/SCOR/113641/2023
Iqbal alias Bala and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.Relied on¶10
(2023) 8 SCC 734 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 949 · Who else cites this
Priyanka Jaiswal v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.Relied on¶12
2024 INSC 357 · Who else cites this
7 provisions across 7 enactments
Devashree w/o Devendra Thakre
Devendra s/o Sadashiv Thakre
Riya s/o Devendra Thakre
Dinesh Harishchandra Gharat
Gorakh s/o Yadav Thakre
Nikhil s/o Gorakh Thakre
A. S. Gadkari
Dr Neela Gokhale
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
