Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Bombay, Division Bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale declined to quash a First Information Report registered in December 2020 against a then Maharashtra Navnirman Sena leader, now associated with Shiv Sena (UBT), in connection with the alleged assault of an advocate who had obtained civil court orders against the party’s workers pressing e-commerce company Amazon to use Marathi in its routine communications. Holding that the investigation material and witness statements disclose a prima facie case of wrongful restraint, assault and criminal intimidation, the Court dismissed the petitioner’s plea under Section 482 CrPC and left it open to the accused to seek discharge before the trial court, where the chargesheet is ready to be filed.

The petitioner sought quashing of FIR registered at Dindoshi Police Station for offences under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 and 34 IPC. The FIR was lodged by Respondent No. 2, an advocate who had appeared in proceedings filed by Amazon Transportation Pvt. Ltd. The complaint recorded that followers of a political party were pressuring the company to use Marathi in day-to-day activities and that the petitioner had earlier issued threats.

Also Read: UPSC Must Treat Teachers Gaining 10 Years’ Experience Between Original And Revised Deadlines As Eligible : Supreme Court Allows Appeals In 2021 Delhi Principal Recruitment Challenge

After the City Civil Court granted an ex parte stay in October 2020, the complainant attended the hearing on 4 December 2020. Upon leaving the court premises, he was approached by unknown persons who assaulted him. Other advocates gathered at the spot, but the assailants fled. The complainant saw the petitioner removing his car while one of the unknown persons was present. The FIR stated that the petitioner, with three unknown persons, “with a common intention stopped the complainant and assaulted him with kick and fist blows and abused him.” Investigation included witness statements, CCTV footage, and the complainant’s injury certificate.

The petitioner argued that the FIR disclosed no role against him, that no cognizable offence was made out, and that subsequent statements could not cure defects in the FIR. The State submitted that the petitioner had been identified, that CCTV footage showed him attempting to flee, and that the chargesheet was ready.

The Court recorded that the FIR, statements, and investigation papers could not justify the petitioner’s contention that no offence was disclosed. It stated that “considering the FIR, the papers of investigation, statements and the injury certificate, it cannot be said that, no case at all is made out against the accused.” The Bench further recorded that “we, in fact find that, a prima facie case is clearly made out against the accused including the Petitioner.” It reiterated that in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, “this Court is not required to conduct a mini trial or get into nitty-gritties of the evidence.” The Court noted that investigation was complete and the chargesheet ready.

Referring to Iqbal @ Bala v. State of U.P., the Bench quoted paragraphs 6 and 7, noting that when investigation is complete and the chargesheet is ready, the appropriate course is for the accused to prefer a discharge application. The Court observed that “the said observations are squarely applicable to the present case.” It stated that “the manner in which assault has taken place etc., is a matter of trial. We cannot, and ought not to… enter into that arena.” It further recorded that the petitioner’s submissions amounted to entering the realm of evidence which was impermissible. The Court also quoted from CBI v. Aryan Singh and Manik B. v. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy, noting that quashing is permissible only where “taking the case at its face value, no case is made out at all” and that the High Court cannot test the correctness of materials in the chargesheet.

The Bench further relied on a recent Bombay High Court judgement reiterating Supreme Court principles that during Section 482 scrutiny, courts cannot engage in a mini trial and must allow the Trial Court to examine the investigation materials. The Court observed that the petitioner had an alternative remedy and noted that “the Petitioner has not made out any case for exercising the powers under section 482.”

Also Read: Revenue Barred From Adjudicating Decade Old Excise Show Cause Notices On Sales Tax/VAT NPV Differential : Bombay High Court Quashes Notices For Inordinate Delay

The Court stated that “the petitioner has not made out any case for exercising the powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petition is dismissed.” The Bench held that it was appropriate to “relegate the Petitioner to avail alternate remedy of filing a discharge application before a Trial Court.” It clarified that refusal to entertain the petition did not leave the petitioner without remedy, noting that “a party should avail for himself such remedies, which are available under the law, before he resorts a constitutional remedy. We are not inclined to extend the interim relief. The said request is accordingly rejected.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Tapan Thattet, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Smt. M. M. Deshmukh, Acting Public Prosecutor with Mr. Vinod Chate, APP for the State; Mr. Kumar Soutade, PSI, Dindoshi Police Station.

Case Title: Akhil Anil Chitre v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AS:53874-DB
Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No. 05 of 2021
Bench: Justice A.S. Gadkari; Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale