Kamlesh Mishra v. The State of Maharashtra

1. Mr. Kamlesh Mishra ] Age 50 Years, Occ: Practicing Advocate, ] Resi. at Flat No. A-504, ] Ramdarshan C.H.S. Ltd., Bhatwadi, ] Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai – 400084. ]

2. Mr. Pradeep Kamlesh Mishra ] Age 22 Years, Occ: Law Student, ] Resi. at Vill. Sadruddinpur, ] Post-Gaderiha, Dist. Jaunpur (U.P.) ] … Petitioners V/s.

1. The State of Maharashtra ] (Through Ghatkopar Police Station, Mumbai). ]

2. Commissioner of Police ] Greater Bombay Crawford Market ] Mumbai – 400001. ]

3. Supriya Pramod Rane ] Aged 42 Years, Occu.: Housewife, ] Res. at Flat No.103, Ramdarshan C.H.S. Ltd., ] Bhatwadi, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai – 400084. ] … Respondents Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey a/w. Mr. Anil Kumar Pandey i/by SAVJ Law Solution for Petitioners. Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.[1] and 2-State. Mr. Onkar A. Wable for Respondent No.3. CORAM: A. S. GADKARI AND RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ. DATE: 4th JULY 2025 JUDGMENT ( Per A.S. Gadkari, J. ):- 1) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are seeking quashing of C.C. No. 881/PW/2014, pending on the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 49th Court at Vikhroli, Mumbai, arising out of C.R. No. 89 of 2014, dated 1st March 2014, registered with Ghatkopar Police Station, Mumbai, under Sections 354-B and 506(II) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2) Heard Mr. Dubey, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, Mrs. Deshmukh, learned APP for Respondent Nos.[1] and 2 and Mr. Wable, learned Advocate for Respondent No.3. Perused entire record.

3) Record indicates that, by an Order dated 1st December 2014, Rule was issued and interim relief was granted in favour of the Petitioners.

4) Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts giving rise to the filing present Petition can be summarized as follows:-

4.1) Respondent No.3 has lodged the aforesaid crime against the Petitioners on 1st March 2014 at about 21:35 (9.35 p.m.), for an alleged incident, which occurred initially at about 8:30 a.m. and later at about 5:45 p.m. in the building of Petitioners and Respondent No.3, where both the parties were residing. It is stated that, Respondent No.3 is residing in Tenement No. A/504 in Ramdarshan Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Asalpha, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai. That, the husband of informant was an office bearer of the said Society. There were differences of opinion between Petitioner No.1 and husband of informant. The Petitioner No.1 therefore had filed civil and criminal cases against the husband of the informant, the Society and other office bearers. The Petitioner No.1 wanted to have office bearers of his choice on the Managing Committee of the Society and had threatened to lodge false complaints. There were non-cognizable cases registered by Respondent No.3 against the Petitioner No.1 and therefore, the Petitioner No.1 was having grudge against the informant and her husband.

4.2) That, on 1st March 2014 at about 8:30 a.m., when Respondent No.3 was on her way to bring flowers for performing pooja, near the lift of the building, she saw the Petitioners present. While Respondent No.3 was passing through the said way, it is alleged that, the Petitioners held her hands and the Petitioner No.2 put his hand on the mouth of Respondent No.3. That, the Petitioner No.1 pulled the ‘padar/pallu’ of her saree and tried to push her in the lift. At that time, both the Petitioners were staring at the Respondent No.3 angrily. In the said incident, the ‘padar/pallu’ of the saree of Respondent No.3 slipped, thereby causing embarrassing moment for her. In the said melee, Respondent No.3 got herself rescued from the clutches of the Petitioners and went to her house.

4.3) It is further alleged that, thereafter in the evening at about 5.45 p.m., the doorbell of the flat of Respondent No.3 rang. When she opened the door, she found the Petitioner No.1 infront of her door. By looking angrily, he threatened her that, whatever happened in the morning, if complained to the Police Station, he would give contract and kill her. The Respondent No.3 therefore closed the door and informed the said fact to her husband and thereafter lodged present crime. In this brief premise, the crime in question is registered.

5) Mrs. Deshmukh, learned A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.[1] & 2-State and Mr. Wable, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.3 vehemently opposed the Petition.

5.1) Mr. Wable, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.3 submitted that, the act of pulling the ‘padar/pallu’ of the saree of Respondent No.3, led to causing embarrassing situation for Respondent No.3, amounts to disrobing her and therefore, Section 354-B of the IPC is squarely applicable to it. He submitted that, cases and cross cases have been filed by and between the Petitioners on the one side and Respondent No.3 and/or her husband on the other side and therefore the Petitioners were harbouring grudge in their mind. It is the reason for committing the crime in question by the Petitioners. He submitted that, prima facie case against the Petitioners is made out and therefore the crime in question may not be quashed.

5.2) Mrs. Deshmukh, learned A.P.P. adopted the arguments of learned Advocate for Respondent No.3 and also submitted that, a prima facie case is made out and therefore the Petition may not be allowed.

6) The facts giving rise to lodgment of crime as noted in paragraph No.4 above, are extracted from the F.I.R. itself. It is apparently clear to us that, on the day and time of the alleged first incident, initially altercation took place, which gave rise to a scuffle between the parties. In the said scuffle, the Petitioner No.1 tried to push Respondent No.3 in lift. Respondent No.3 herself has stated that, the Petitioners were staring at her angrily. It is thus clear that, the Petitioners were not having intention to outrage the modesty of Respondent No.3 or to disrobe her. At the most, in the fit of anger, they pushed her in the lift.