Allowed¶27

Aniket Pravin Nitnaware v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Jan 2025APL/1684/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR/crime CR No.0311 of 2024, Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai; Section 79 BNS 2023; application under Section 528 BNSS 2023; Bombay Hospital ICU; resident doctor and nurse; touching of nameplate on dress near chest; absence of intention to outrage modesty or intrude upon privacy; no independent witness; no statement of Dr.Sushant; complainant's consent to quashing after apology; investigation continuation held sheer harassment and abuse of process; Division Bench of A.S. Gadkari and Rajesh S. Patil, JJ.; decided 18 August 2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of crime CR No.0311 of 2024 registered with Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai, granted in terms of prayer clause (a) of the application. ¶27

Aniket Pravin Nitnaware vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of crime CR No.0311 of 2024 registered with Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai, granted in terms of prayer clause (a) of the application.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the crime (CR No.0311 of 2024) registered against the applicant with Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai under Section 79 of the BNS 2023 ought to be quashed.

¶11

Court's answer

There is no other witness to the alleged incident though it took place in the ICU of Bombay Hospital, Mumbai, and no statement of Dr.Sushant is on record to corroborate the version of Respondent No.2.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

On a minute perusal of the F.I.R., the applicant had no intention to commit the act alleged under Section 79 of the BNS; he touched/held the nameplate affixed on Respondent No.2's dress near her chest only in order to see her name, even after she first tried to ward off his hand.

¶23

Key takeaways

Since the applicant did not commit any act as contemplated under Section 79 of the BNS, continuation of investigation of the present crime would be sheer harassment to the applicant and an abuse of process, and the crime deserves to be quashed.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 by the accused in CR No.0311 of 2024 (Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai, dated 3rd August 2024) registered under Section 79 of the BNS 2023, seeking quashing of the crime. The complaint was lodged by Respondent No.2, a nurse working in the ICU unit of Bombay Hospital, Mumbai, alleging that the applicant, a resident doctor, angrily demanded her computer, deleted her work, and touched the nameplate affixed on the dress of her chest, which she felt was an insult to her modesty amounting to intruding upon the privacy of a woman. The Division Bench (A.S. Gadkari and Rajesh S. Patil, JJ.) noted that there was no other witness to the incident despite its occurrence in the ICU and no statement of Dr.Sushant on record to corroborate Respondent No.2's version. On a minute perusal of the F.I.R., the Court held that the applicant had no intention to commit the act contemplated under Section 79 of the BNS - he held the nameplate only with a view to see the name of Respondent No.2, even though the touching was repeated after she first tried to ward off his hand. The Court further held that continuation of investigation would be sheer harassment to the applicant and an abuse of process. The Court observed that Respondent No.2 was ready and willing to give her consent to quashing as the applicant had apologized for the alleged act. The Application was accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), i.e., the crime was quashed.

¶1

KSG 61-APL-1684-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1684 OF 2024

¶4

Aniket Pravin Nitnaware.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

V/s.

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

¶8

Ms.Shweta Wankhede, for Applicant. Ms.Savita M.Yadav, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State. Ms.Devyani Bhadang (Appointed Advocate) for Respondent No.2. Ms.Kajal Pansare, PSI, attached to Azad Maidan Police Station.

¶9

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 18^th August, 2025.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

By this Application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the accused in CR No.0311 of 2024, dated 3^rd August, 2024, registered with Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai, under Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, is seeking quashing of the said crime.

¶12

Heard Ms.Wankhede, learned Advocate for Applicant, Ms.Yadav, learned APP for Respondent No.1-State and Ms.Bhadang, learned Advocate appointed to represent for Respondent No.2. Perused entire record.

¶13

It is the case of the Respondent No.2 that, she was working in ICU unit of Bombay Hospital, Mumbai as a Nurse. She resumed on her duty at about 8.00 a.m. on 30^th August, 2024. At about 10.00 a.m. when she was

¶14

1/4

¶15

KSG 61-APL-1684-2024.doc

¶16

performing her duty, Applicant, a resident Doctor came at the said place. He was informed by Dr.Jhnavi that, a patient by name Smt.Agarwal has been admitted as indoor patient with the complaint of pain in chest. At about 5.00 p.m. the Applicant visited the said patient. At that time, the Respondent No.2 was entering data of the said patient in the computer. Applicant approached Respondent No.2 and demanded the said computer for perusing the information of the said patient. The Respondent No.2 replied that, after her work is over, she would give the computer to him. At that time, the Applicant angrily told Respondent No.2 ‘you yourself see the discharge of the patients I am going’. A bickering took place thereof between them.

¶17

3.1) It is alleged that, after some time the Applicant left the said place. In the fit of anger, he took the computer from the Respondent No.2 and deleted the work done by her and started observing the information of his patients. Thereafter, he looked at the Respondent No.2 and saw the nameplate affixed on the dress of her chest with his hand. When the Respondent No.2 tried to ward off the hand of the Applicant, the Applicant again touched it. Due to the said act, the Respondent No.2 felt insult to her modesty, amounting to intruding upon the privacy of a women. Thereafter Applicant went away. The victim informed the said fact to Dr.Sushant immediately.

¶18

In this brief premise present crime is lodged by the Respondent

¶19

No.2.

¶20

2/4

¶21

KSG 61-APL-1684-2024.doc

¶22

Learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.2 opposed the Application and submitted that, from the act alleged by the Respondent No.2 against the Applicant, the ingredients of Section 79 of the BNS are primafacie made out and therefore the said crime may not be quashed. She however fairly pointed out the fact that, the Respondent No.2 is ready and willing to give her consent of quashing of the crime in-question as the Applicant had apologized for his act alleged to have been committed by him.

¶23

From perusal of record of investigation it appears that, there is no other witness to the said incident though it took place in the ICU of Bombay Hospital, Mumbai. No statement of Dr.Sushant is on record to corroborate the version of the Respondent No.2. A minute perusal of the F.I.R clearly indicates that, the Applicant had no intention to commit the act as alleged under Section 79 of the BNS. It is with a view to see the name of the Respondent No.2, the Applicant touched/held the nameplate of the Respondent No.2. The act of touching the name plate is alleged to have been repeated by the Applicant, after the Respondent No.2 firstly tried to ward off the hand of Petitioner. As noted earlier, it appears to us that, there was no intention at the behest of the Applicant to commit the act as contemplated under Section 79 of the BNS. As narrated in the F.I.R. itself, the Applicant in the fit anger tried to see the name of the Respondent No.2 and therefore he held the numberplate which was affixed on her dress/uniform near chest.

¶24

3/4

¶25

KSG 61-APL-1684-2024.doc

¶26

After perusing the entire record, we are of the considered view that, the Applicant did not commit any act as contemplated under Section 79 of the BNS. The continuation of investigation of present crime therefore would be sheer harassment to the Applicant and abuse of process and therefore it deserves to be quashed.

¶27

The Application is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause

¶28

(a).

¶29

( RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ) ( A.S. GADKARI, J. )

¶30

Digitally
signed by
KIRAN KIRANSANJAY
SANJAYGHUGE GHUGEDate:2025.09.04
11:33:11
+0530

¶31

4/4

Aniket Pravin Nitnaware v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aniket Pravin Nitnaware v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rahulraj Harishchandra Kamble and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Aarif S/O Ayub Salar vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kashinath Kisan Deokate vs State of Maharashtra

Ahmed Hussain Khan and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohammad Salim Iqbal Qureshi @ Salim Fruit vs National Investigation Agency and Anr.

Ghanshyam Mesaji Jondhale vs the State of Maharashtra