The Bombay High Court has quashed a chargesheet against a man accused of offences under Sections 353, 504 and 506 of the IPC, observing that mobile phone footage and WhatsApp conversations prima facie showed that the complainant-police constable had demanded ₹300 from him for returning his driving licence. The Court observed that a false case of criminal intimidation had thereafter been foisted on the accused, and found the prosecution story “completely unbelievable” and “false and concocted”.

Justice Milind N. Jadhav was hearing a criminal application seeking quashing of FIR filed under Sections 353, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complainant was a police constable, while the Applicant was carrying on a jewellery business.

The incident occurred when the complainant asked the applicant to produce his vehicle papers and licence, and returned the papers without returning the licence. The prosecution alleged that the Applicant misbehaved with the complainant, held his shirt collar and threatened and intimidated him.

The Applicant's case was that the complainant had threatened to foist a criminal case against him for riding without a helmet and demanded either ₹500 as penalty for returning the licence or ₹300 as a bribe to resolve the matter. The Applicant further stated that when he went to the police station to lodge an NC against the complainant, he was detained at the police station.

The Court found that the Applicant had recorded the incident on his mobile phone, including the complainant allegedly not returning his licence and demanding ₹300 for its return. The Court referred to the transcript of WhatsApp conversations and messages exchanged by the complainant with police officers and senior officers regarding the incident, observing:

“… what precisely transpired in the Police Station, prima facie, show that the Complainant and his colleagues have been instrumental in foisting a false case of criminal intimidation against the Applicant.”

The Court found it prima facie unbelievable that, in the circumstances narrated by the complainant, the Applicant would hold the shirt collar of a police constable and threaten him in a public place. It also noted that the complainant's statement merely referred to the Applicant riding the motorcycle without a helmet and consciously avoided the issue of the alleged snatching of the licence.

“It consciously avoids the issue relating to snatching of license because no Police constable has the power to confiscate the license if the motorcycle rider rides the motorcycle without his helmet,” the Court remarked.

The Court observed that the CCTV footage of the police station would have been the only way to ascertain the veracity of the allegations regarding the Applicant's detention and alleged harassment. However, the prosecution stated that the CCTV footage, which should have been preserved, was not available. In these circumstances, the Court held:

“… the prosecution story is not only unbelievable but in my opinion it is a false and concocted story and case foisted on the Applicant.”

The Court accordingly allowed the application and quashed and set aside the chargesheet and proceedings. It further directed that the Applicant's licence, if confiscated, be returned.

Case Title: Mukesh W. Siyal v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Application No. 612 of 2018]

Click Here To Read/Download Order