“Not a fit case to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction”: Bombay HC Refuses To Quash FIR Against Handicapped Person
Allegedly, the accused had harassed a girl and had tried to pull her inside a car. Court refused to quash FIR after noting that the defense arguments raised by the accused's counsel could be taken up before the trial court at the time of trial.
A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice S.M Modak refused to quash an FIR against a handicapped person accused of stalking, outraging the modesty of women, wrongful confinement, and criminal intimidation.
The complainant had alleged that in March 2021 when she was purchasing vegetables at around 11:00 AM, the petitioner/accused held her hand, disclosed his name, and told her his address. The complaint had stated that the petitioner told her that he liked her so much and that he would make her happy if she goes with him (“Tu mujhe bohot pasand hai, mere saath chale gi kya, mai tumhe khush kar dunga”).
Further, the complainant had alleged that whenever she went out to the market, the petitioner used to stop her and harass her. She had stated that once he asked her to give him her phone number as he wanted her to take her out (“tumhara mobile number de do mujhe tumhe bahar le ke jana hai, sub kharcha mai karta hu, ek baar mere saath chalo, agar tumhe bahar jane ko sharam aati hai to mere ghar pe koi nahi hai tum kaho to ghar pe jayege”).
The complainant had stated that she ignored the petitioner when he followed her to the house and did not disclose it to her family because she was scared.
The complaint had also stated that on 8th June 2021 when she went outside her house, the petitioner was standing near a golden color Toyota car and he asked her to go for a ride with him (“ye gaadi meri hai, chal ek ghanta me ghoom ke aate hai”).
It had been also alleged that the petitioner/accused subsequently opened the car door, tried to pull the complainant inside the car, touched her inappropriately, and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident to anyone.
The advocate for the petitioner/accused argued that false and fabricated FIR was filed against the petitioner, and that the present complaint had been lodged malafidely. He also argued that no such incident had taken place because the petitioner being a handicapped person could not have pulled the complainant into the car.
However, the court refused to agree with the arguments of the petitioner and said that the defense of the petitioner will be considered by the trial Court, at the time of trial.
The court while refusing to quash the FIR stated, “Considering what is stated aforesaid, this is not a fit case to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction nor inherent jurisdiction for quashing the case.”
Case Title: Yusuf Afroz Yusha Hussaini Sayyed vs State of Maharashtra & Ors