APL/1333/2024 of SHRI. MUJAHID IQBAL S/O MOHD. ISMAIL Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. PSO, PS, SADAR DIST NAGPUR AND 1 on 14 October 2026

Judgment

1 J-APL No.1333.2024.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1333 OF 2024 Shri Mujahid Iqbal S/o. Mohd. Ismail, Aged about 56 years, Occu.: Business, Presently R/o. A1 Gurg Tower, Mashriq Studio, Opposite Sharjah Rotana Hotel, Rolla, Sharjah, (UAE) Post Add. C/o. Plot No.87/A, Besides Raghav Apartment, Nelson Square, Nagpur.

…. APPLICANT // VERSUS //

State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer of Police Station Sadar, Dist. Nagpur.

XYZ, Complainant FIR/Crime No. 745/2023, Police Station Sadar, Teh. & Dist. Nagpur. …. NON-APPLICANTS _____________________________________________________________ Mr. S. S. Sitani, Advocate for applicant. Mr. H.D. Futane, Assistant Public Prosecutor for non-applicant No.1/State. Mr. N. S. Khandewale, Advocate for non-applicant No.2. _____________________________________________________________ CORAM : M.W. CHANDWANI,

J.

RESERVED ON : 01.09.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 14.10.2026

JUDGMENT :

1. ADMIT. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2026:BHC-NAG:13906-DB

Judgment

2. The applicant seeks quashing of First Information Report (FIR) No.745/2023, dated 05.12.2023, registered with Police Station, Sadar, Nagpur City for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) as well as Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “POCSO Act”) and consequent Chargesheet No.09/2024, dated 30.01.2024, registered as Special Case No.84/2024, pending before 3rd District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur.

3. The applicant is the father of non-applicant No.2/complainant. Non-applicant No.2 alleged that the applicant forcefully entered into the house where she resides with her mother and her siblings along with three unknown men and one unknown lady. The applicant abused his wife and asked the guests who were present in the house to get out of his house. Thereafter, the applicant caught hold of Sayyad Zoheb, who is the home-tutor of the children of the applicant and wrangled with him. When the complainant intervened, the applicant pulled her and assaulted her, thereby causing injury to her wrist. The unknown lady who entered with the applicant also assaulted the complainant. Whereas, the other unknown persons assaulted the sister of the complainant on her back and touched her inappropriately near her neck and chest. They

Judgment

threatened the siblings and the mother of the complainant. It is further alleged that an amount of Rs.10,000/- was stolen from the dining table in the living room. Therefore, on the complaint of the complainant, the aforesaid offences came to be registered against the applicant and other co-accused. After completion of investigation, chargesheet came to be filed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is the father of the complainant. Due to matrimonial discord, the applicant is residing separately from his wife. It is contended that the applicant saw that an unknown person wearing a Burkha often used to visit his house, where his wife and minor children were residing separately. Therefore, he along with his acquainted persons went to the house and caught hold of the said person who posed as the home-tutor of the children. The applicant had also called the police. The applicant then lodged the FIR against his wife and the said person. It is contended that the wife of the applicant has also lodged a counter-complaint against the applicant and his companions. After almost 10 days, another complaint came to be lodged with regard to the same incident by exaggerating the version and adding the allegations of sexual harassment of the minor child. It is further contended that once the FIR is lodged, second FIR cannot be lodged on the same incident. To buttress his submission,

Judgment

learned counsel for the applicant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T. T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & others, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the material on record suggests that a false complaint has been filed by the complainant to wreak vengeance.

5. Per contra, learned APP assisted by learned counsel for the complainant objected to the application on the ground that the applicant forcefully entered into the house where the complainant along with her mother and siblings were residing. The applicant instigated his companions to do whatever they wanted inside the house. According to him, the applicant as well as the unknown lady accompanying him assaulted the complainant and her siblings. Moreover, one of the male members touched the neck and chest of the sister of the complainant inappropriately. Therefore, according to him, there is prima facie material available against the applicant of having committed the offences alleged against him in the FIR. Hence, he sought rejection of the application.

6. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for non-applicant No.2.

7. Having gone through the chargesheet and the material placed on record, it appears that the applicant is a resident of Dubai.

Judgment

He married Amreen Mujahid Iqbal in the year 1999. Due to matrimonial discord, wife of the applicant along with two daughters and a son started residing separately at Nagpur since 2017. Whereas, the applicant is residing with his elder son at Sharjah. It appears from FIR No.737/2023 lodged by the applicant on 26.11.2023 that he got to know that his wife is bringing an unknown man into the house, who goes there dressed in a Burkha. Therefore, on 25.11.2023, when the said person went inside the house, the applicant had informed the police and called them to his house. Initially, he along with his companions went inside the house and found the said person in his bedroom without a shirt. When the applicant caught the said person, he was trying to flee away and therefore, a scuffle took place between them. Both the daughters were trying to separate both of them. Thereafter, the Police came inside the house and the said person, along with the applicant were taken to the police station. The applicant lodged a complaint against his wife and the said unknown person for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

8. It appears that the wife of the applicant also lodged FIR No.736/2023 against the applicant and his companions wherein, she alleged that the applicant along with the other co-accused entered the house where she is residing along her children and started assaulting

Judgment

Sayyad Zoheb who was a home-tutor to her children. When her daughter tried to separate the applicant and Sayyad Zoheb, the applicant pulled the hand of his daughter as a result of which, she sustained minor injuries on her wrist. Another allegation levelled against the applicant and his companions is that they assaulted the two daughters and the son of the complainant. Therefore, on her complaint, FIR No.736/2023 came to be lodged for the offences punishable under Section 294, 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the applicant and other co-accused.

9. The record reveals that almost 10 days after the incident, the complainant-daughter of the applicant reached the police station and lodged a complaint i.e. the present FIR in respect of the same incident wherein she alleged that on 25.11.2023, the applicant along with his three companions entered the house. At that time, her mother was sitting in the hall along with a few guests, whereas Sayyed Zoheb was teaching her younger sister and brother in one of the bedrooms. The applicant started abusing in filthy language and asked the guests to get out of his house. The applicant thereafter, went to the room where Sayyed Zoheb was teaching her brother and sister and caught hold of him. He then had a scuffle with him. When the complainant tried to intervene, the applicant pulled her hand, whereby she sustained an injury in her wrist. Apart from what has

Judgment

already been alleged by the mother of the complainant in FIR No. 736/2023 with regard to the same incident, the complainant has also alleged that two male and one female companions of the applicant entered the house, apart from the police personnel. It is alleged that one person who was wearing a red coloured T-shirt started recording a video in his mobile phone. When the complainant asked him not to record, the applicant told her that this is his property and asked the man to continue recording the video. It is also alleged by the complainant that at that time, the person who was wearing a red coloured T-shirt touched the neck and chest of her younger sister Nashra. It is further alleged in the said complaint that an amount of Rs.10,000/- which was kept by her mother on the dining table could not be found later on.

10. As stated above, the mother of the complainant has already lodged a complaint in respect of the same incident with the police station. On 25.11.2023 itself, the police registered the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the applicant and his companions. In the said report, the mother of the complainant did not allege any theft of Rs.10,000/- or allegations of sexual harassment of her minor daughter. It is almost after 10 days, that the present FIR came to be lodged at the instance of her elder daughter in respect of theft, outraging the modesty and

Judgment

sexual harassment of her minor daughter in the same incident dated 25.11.2023.

11. One can understand that since the incident about the alleged sexual harassment and theft of amount of Rs.10,000/- from the house of the complainant happened abruptly, the same could not be informed to the mother and the sister i.e. the complainant, immediately. However, the second FIR has been lodged almost 10 days after the alleged incident for which one FIR was already lodged. It is to be noted here that there is a matrimonial discord between the applicant and his wife and there are various cases pending between them in the Court of law. The relationship between them is strained to the extent that they lodged FIRs against each other. In the first version, the complainant-wife did not allege any sexual harassment at the hands of one of the companions of the applicant. However, after 10 days of the incident, the complainant by exaggerating her version, alleged violation of the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act, while filing the second FIR.

12. That apart, Section 11 of the POCSO Act speaks about acts of harassment with sexual intent. If a person commits harassment upon a minor with sexual intent, then he is said to have committed sexual harassment of the minor and he is liable for punishment in accordance with Section 12 of the POCSO Act. In the present case,

Judgment

various allegations are levelled against the applicant and his companions. There was a scuffle between the applicant and Sayyed Zoheb, where the complainant and her mother, including her younger minor sister were trying to separate both the applicant and Sayyed Zoheb. The other companion was recording a video of the said incident. The allegation of sexual harassment is levelled on the companion who was recording the video. The other lady accompanying the applicant was also trying to manhandle the children of the applicant. Even if the allegations of touching the neck and chest of the younger sister of the complainant are taken at its face value, in a situation of commotion and quarrel inside the house, the sexual intent on the part of companion of the applicant cannot be inferred, that too in presence of so many persons including the father of the victim girl. Rather, there are no allegations in the FIR that the said act of touching the neck and chest was done by the said person with sexual intent.

13. Be that as it may, even otherwise the role of sexual harassment of the younger sister of the complainant is assigned to the companion of the applicant who was wearing a red coloured T-shirt. There is no allegation of abetment or common intention made against the applicant with the said person wearing a red coloured T-shirt. Likewise, there are no allegations that the present applicant took

Judgment

away the amount. Therefore, no offences whatsoever are made out against the applicant under Sections 379 and 354 of the IPC as well as Section 12 of the POCSO Act. More particularly, when in the earlier FIR, the same incident is reported by the mother of the complainant who has not made any allegations of theft or outraging the modesty of the complainant and her mother and sexual harassment of her younger daughter.

14. Admittedly, once FIR No.736/2023, dated 25.11.2023, disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence, was lodged by mother of the complainant and the criminal law was set into motion, the said FIR ends with either forwarding the Police Report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. or filing of Summary Report under Section 169 of the Cr.P.C. Even if another piece of information is given in respect of the same incident to the police, registration of a separate FIR is not permissible. All subsequent information relating to the same incident given orally or in writing, received after the commencement of investigation, is disclosed in the earlier FIR of the said incident. If other cognizable offences come to the notice of the Investigating Officer during investigation, the statement under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. will be recorded in the said crime. No information/statement can be reiterated in the FIR and in the Station House Diary again, as it would amount to registering a second FIR,

Judgment

which cannot be in conformity with the scheme of the Cr.P.C. In this regard, a reference can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in T. T. Antony vs. State of Kerala (supra) relied upon by the applicant, wherein it has been held as under : “27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the court. There cannot be any controversy that sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narang case [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission of the court. However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) CrPC. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 CrPC, nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case. In our view a case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter-case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is under way or final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.”

15. In view of the above, I find support in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that FIR No.745/2023 lodged by the

Judgment

complainant against the applicant and consequent proceedings arising out of the same cannot be sustained. The case in hand is fit to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the FIR and consequent proceedings against the applicant. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order :

(i) The Criminal Application is allowed.

(ii) FIR No.745/2023, dated 05.12.2023, registered with Police Station, Sadar, Nagpur City for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and consequent Chargesheet No.09/2024, dated 30.01.2024, registered as Special Case No.84/2024, pending before 3rd District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur, are hereby quashed and set aside, qua the present applicant only.

16. The criminal application is disposed of.

17. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) Kirtak Signed by: Mr. B.J. Kirtak Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 15/10/2026 19:42:30