- Case
- SANJAY PANDURANG SINGHAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR (Bombay High Court, 16-12-2025)
- Law
- Code of Criminal Procedure, Indian Penal Code.
Facts: The applicant, a social worker, was accused of outraging the modesty of the first informant (R2), a political party member, during a meeting concerning SRA projects. The informant alleged that the applicant pushed her by touching her chest after she raised concerns about the meeting. Initially, she filed a non-cognizable complaint for offences under Sections 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, without mentioning the alleged act of outraging modesty. Later, she filed an FIR under Section 354 of the IPC. 58 out of 59 witnesses did not support the prosecution's version.
Procedural Posture: The applicant filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings (CC No.1171/PW/2025) arising out of C.R.No.213 of 2024 and the order of cognizance dated 5 March 2025 passed by the Magistrate.
Issue: Whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, should be quashed, considering the initial non-cognizable complaint, the delay in alleging the act of outraging modesty, and the lack of support from the majority of witnesses.
Holding: Yes, the criminal application is allowed, and the proceedings are quashed.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the initial omission to mention the act of outraging modesty in the non-cognizable complaint filed shortly after the alleged incident casts doubt on the veracity of the subsequent allegations. The Court emphasized that Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates obtaining permission from the Magistrate before investigating a non-cognizable offence. The IO failed to follow this procedure. The court also noted that the majority of witnesses did not support the informant's version, and even the prime witness disowned the prosecution version. The court found that continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of the process of the court, referencing the principles laid down in State of Haryana V/s. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. The court also relied on previous judgments, including Asif Khan Pathan V/s. State through PP and Ors. and Shoeb Arif Memon and Ors. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Anr., which highlighted the importance of adhering to Section 155(2) of the CrPC and the implications of delayed allegations. The court also referred to State of Punjab v/s. Major Singh to explain the ingredients of Section 354 of IPC.
