Bombay High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of FIR against Maharashtra Navnirman Sena worker for alleged assault on an advocate for obtaining ex-parte stay against them from interfering in Amazon’s operations by demanding the use Marathi language in its day-to-day activities, a Division bench of A.S. Gadkari and Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale,* JJ., refused to quash the FIR.
In the instant matter, the controversy arose out of demands made in October 2020 by followers of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena insisting that Amazon Transportation Pvt. Ltd. “should use Marathi language in their day-to-day activities.” The complainant-Respondent 2, an Advocate, had appeared in Civil Suit filed by Amazon Transportation Pvt. Ltd., in which an ex parte stay order dated 22-10-2020 was obtained against followers of Maharashtra Navnirman Sena from interfering in Amazon’s operations.
At around 1:30 pm on 04-12-2020, after finishing court proceedings, the complainant was accosted by an unknown person asking if he had taken the stay order. Two other persons came from behind and “started assaulting the complainant. As other advocates assembled, assailants fled; they were chased but not caught.
The complainant saw the petitioner removing his car, lawyers questioning him noticed one of the unknown persons near him. It was alleged that the petitioner along with three unknown persons, “pursuant to and with a common intention,” obstructed and assaulted the complainant for obtaining the stay.
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR dated 04-12-2020 registered at Dindoshi Police Station for offences under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The petitioner contended that no role was assigned, no cognizable offence was made out, and that the statements recorded later could not cure deficiencies in the FIR.
On the other hand, the State argued that investigation was complete, CCTV footage showed the petitioner trying to flee, advocates present had identified him, the complainant suffered injuries, and the petitioner was a “history-sheeter” with multiple prior offences.
The Court held that a prima facie case is clearly made out against the accused including the petitioner. The Court noted the presence of investigation material, injury certificate, witness statements and CCTV footage “prima facie implicates the petitioner”.
The Court recalled that under Section 482 CrPC, it cannot conduct a “mini trial” or examine the “nitty-gritties of the evidence.” The Court relied on Iqbal v. State of U.P., (2023) 20 SCC 209, where the Supreme Court held that when investigation is complete and chargesheet ready, the accused should prefer discharge under Section 227 CrPC, and the High Court should not quash the FIR merely because the allegations may appear doubtful.
The Court observed that the petitioner’s submissions amounted to “entering into the arena of evidence and trial, which… is not permitted.” The Court referred to CBI v. Aryan Singh, (2023) 18 SCC 399, where it was held that High Courts cannot evaluate evidence as if at trial and Manik B. v. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy,1 where it was stated that quashing lies only when “taking the case at its face value, no case is made out at all.”
The Court reiterated the principle that a party should ordinarily avail statutory remedies before invoking extraordinary jurisdiction. The Court asserted that since investigation was complete, the Trial Court was the appropriate forum to consider a discharge application.
The Court refused to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quash the FIR as “no case for quashing is made out.” The Court relegated the petitioner to filing a discharge application before the Trial Court.
[Akhil Anil Chitre v. State of Maharashtra, CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 05 OF 2021, Decided on 09-12-2025]
*Judgment by Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Tapan Thattet, Counsel for the Petitioner
Smt. M. M. Deshmukh, Acting PP for State with Mr. Vinod Chate, APP, Counsel for the Respondent/State
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
1. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2023, dated 07-08-2023.