CASE NAME: Girish Nigonda Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
CASE NUMBER: Writ Petition No. 3550 of 2025
COURT: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
DATE: 20 August, 2026
QUORUM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay J. Mantri
FACTS
The Petitioner, Girish Nigonda Patil, invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash FIR No. 0090 of 2024 dated 5 February 2024, registered at Mangalwedha Police Station for offences under Sections 323, 353, 354 and 354-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. By amendment, he also sought quashing of the charge-sheet filed in Regular Criminal Case No. 198 of 2024, filed after investigation was completed during the pendency of the petition.
The complainant (Respondent No. 2), an employee at the Gram Panchayat office, alleged that the Petitioner entered the office, quarrelled with her, snatched an approval order relating to a housing scheme from her hands, tore it up, threw it on the table, and then grabbed and pressed her right shoulder before shoving her away, causing her to feel ashamed. Two persons present on the spot – the village Sarpanch and a peon, reportedly witnessed the incident and asked the Petitioner to leave the office.
ISSUE
Whether the ingredients of Sections 354 and 354-A of the IPC were prima facie attracted against the Petitioner, and whether the FIR and charge-sheet warranted quashing under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Sections 323, 353, 354 and 354-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER: The Counsel did not ask for quashing of the offence under Sections 323 and 353 IPC, focusing on Sections 354 and 354-A. Counsel submitted that pressing the shoulder of the complainant did not amount to an intention to outrage the modesty of the woman, and that no touching or molestation of a sexual nature could be inferred from the facts in the FIR under Section 354-A. It was further contended that the FIR was lodged out of a grudge, since the Petitioner had earlier complained against the Respondent to the Block Development Officer. Reliance was placed on two Supreme Court decisions on the scope of Section 354-A.
RESPONDENTS: Both the APP and counsel for respondent no. 2 opposed the petition on the ground that the averments in the FIR were supplemented by the statement of the victim as well as two eyewitnesses, who had clearly established the intention to outrage the modesty of the victim.
ANALYSIS
On perusing the FIR, the Court found that the averments prima facie disclosed use of assault or criminal force to deter the complainant from discharging her duty as a public servant, and conduct that outraged her modesty, causing her to feel ashamed is sufficient to attract Sections 323, 353 and 354 IPC. However, the Court held that nothing in the FIR indicated physical contact or advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures, or a demand for sexual favours, which are the specific ingredients required under Section 354-A. The statements of the two eyewitnesses were found to corroborate the victim’s account of the incident as a whole.
The Court distinguished both precedents relied on by the Petitioner as factually inapplicable – one had involved a complete absence of prima facie evidence of force or intent, and the other had involved an FIR that did not name the accused, evidence of fabrication, and multiple FIRs against the same accused, none of which applied here.
JUDGMENT
The Writ Petition was partly allowed. The FIR and charge-sheet were quashed only to the extent of the offence under Section 354-A IPC. The petition was dismissed insofar as it sought quashing in respect of Sections 323, 353 and 354 IPC, and the Rule was made partly absolute accordingly. The Court clarified that its observations would not prejudice the Petitioner during trial.
CONCLUSION
The judgment reaffirms that Section 354-A IPC carries a distinct and narrower mental element – unwelcome sexual advances or a demand for sexual favours that cannot be inferred merely from conduct sufficient to attract the broader offence of outraging modesty under Section 354. Courts exercising Section 482 jurisdiction will decline to quash charges corroborated by eyewitness accounts, but will intervene surgically where the FIR, on its face, fails to disclose the specific ingredients of a particular offence.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: DRISHTITA BANIK
Read the Judgeent copy below:
Girish Nigonda Patil vs State of Maharashtra
