Helcino A Fernandes And 3 Ors vs State Thr Police Inspector And Anr

2026:BHC-GOA:941
WPCR -20-2026( F )
2026:BHC-GOA:941

Niti
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.20 of 2026(F)
1. Mr. Helcino A. Fernandes,
Son of Mr. Jose C. Fernandes,
Age 61 years, Indian National,
Residing at H. No.326,
Godinho Waddo,
Majorda, Salcete –Goa.

2. Mr. Frank Melroy Da Silva
Son of Mr. Jose Francisco Da Silva
Age 36 years,
R/o. H.no. 2A, Gonsua Betalbhatim,
Salcete – Goa.

3. Mr. Augustinho Shelton Da Silva
Son of Mr. Jose Francisca Da Silva
Age 27 years, Indian national,
R/o. H.no. 166/3, Addawaddo,
Majorda, Salcete – Goa.

4. Mr. Jose Francisco Da Silva
Son of late Antonio Da Silva
Age 64 years, Indian National,
R/o. H. no. 2A, Gonsua, Betalbatim,
Salcete – Goa.

...PETITIONERS

Versus

1. STATE,
Through Police Inspector,
Colva Police Station,
Colva, Salcete, Goa.

2. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
High Court of Bombay at Goa,

16
1

::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/05/2026 00:05:33 :::

WPCR -20-2026( F )

Porvorim-Goa.

3. Mr Menino Fernandes,
217, Pachecowaddo, Majorda,
Salcete, South Goa, Goa.

... RESPONDENTS

Mr Nigel da Costa Frias with Mr Kartik Panchal and Mr Savio
Mesquita, Advocates for the Petitioner.

Mr S. Karpe, Additional Public Prosecutor with Ms Sonali
Gaonkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Mr Anacleto Viegas with Mr Mohammad Nadaf, Advocate for
Respondent No.3.

CORAM : ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.

rd
Reserved on : 23 APRIL 2026
th
Pronounced on : 29 APRIL 2026

JUDGMENT :

1.
The Petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court
to quash and set aside the FIR No.79/2023 dated 14.11.2023 registered by
Respondent No.1 against the Petitioners and the subsequent chargesheet
arisi ǿǠ thereǟroǾ ǈeariǿǠ No.ࢴ/ࢳࢱࢳࢵ ǟiled ǈeǟore the Childreǿঢ়s Court at
Panaji for offences punishable under Sections 323, 506 of IPC and Section 8
of the Goa Childre ǿঢ়s Aǉt, ࢳࢱࢱࢴ (the said Act) r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2.
The Petitioners are arraigned in the aforesaid chargesheet as accused,
whereas the Respondent No.3 is the father of the minor victim boy (victim) at
whose instance the aforesaid proceedings are initiated.

16
2

::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/05/2026 00:05:33 :::

WPCR -20-2026( F )

3.
The factual matrix germane to decide the issue arising before this
Court is as under:

(i) That the victim filed the complaint dated 11.11.2023, received by the
Police on 13.11.2023, making allegations against the Petitioners. In
the said complaint, the minor victim boy alleges that he was earlier
assaulted and attacked by the Silva brothers on 21.10.2023.

(ii) Narrating the incident of 11.11.2023, the victim alleges that he had
gone to the beach to play football. When he came back to drink
water, at that time, Helcino came towards him. He caught hold of
his T-shirt and took his fist to the jaw of the victim and told him
that he would break him like he broke his father Menino
(Respondent No.3). Then Petitioner No.3 (Augustino) who was
standing near Petitioner No.1 (Helcino) said that he would break
the legs of the victim so that the victim would never play again.
Petitioner No.2 said that he would suffocate the victim to death.
(iii) Apprehending violence at the hands of the Petitioners (assailants) and
perceiving that there was a threat to his life and limb, the
Complainant filed the aforesaid complaint.
(iv) Taking cognizance of the said complaint, the Respondent - Police
Station filed FIR against Petitioner Nos.1 to 3. During the course
of investigation, apart from recording statements and drawing of
panchanamas, the Police obtained a Hurt certificate of the victim
and recorded his statement under Section 164 of CrPC.

16
3

::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/05/2026 00:05:33 :::

WPCR -20-2026( F )

(v) The statement of the victim under Section 164 of CrPC sets out the
details of the incident of assault. The statement reflects that on
11.11.2023 at around 01.00 p.m., when the victim had finished his
game of football and was drinking water in the sports shed, he was
approached by the Petitioner No.1, who caught hold of the collar
of the T-shirt of the victim and punched him near the throat area
below the chin. The victim states that he was hurt and there was
some swelling near his neck. Petitioner No.1 then gave some papers
pertaining to water sports and threatened the victim, saying that if
he does not give these papers to his father, then Petitioner No.1
would assault the victim in the same way as he had assaulted his
father. The statement further reveals that thereafter Petitioner No.3
threatened the victim by saying that he would break his legs when
he goes to play football on the beach. Thereafter, the other
Petitioners also threatened him. The victim, in his statement,
further narrates that there is a rivalry between his father and the Silva
brothers with respect to water sports activity and hence the
Petitioners are not on good terms with the victim and his family. He
also states that this is the second occasion on which the Petitioners
have assaulted the victim. Due to their fear, the victim states that he
is unable to even step out of his house.
(vi) The statement of one lady, who is a friend of the mother of the victim,
forms part of the chargesheet. She states that on the day of the
incident, she saw the victim playing football on the beach. While

16
4

::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/05/2026 00:05:33 :::

WPCR -20-2026( F )

she was talking with someone else, she heard a commotion and saw
some people surrounding the victim near the shack shed and one of
the perso ǿs ǉauǠht hold oǟ the ΚiǉtiǾঢ়s T -shirt collar and threatened
that they would assault him. She further states that she, along with
another lady, started walking towards the victim boy, but before
they could reach the assailants, they went away. This lady does not
identify the Petitioners as the assailants in her statement, however,
there is another eyewitness, who is also a friend of the mother of the
victim and has seen the aforesaid incident and identified two of the
Petitioners as the assailants. Her statement also forms part of the
chargesheet.
4. Heard Mr Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocate for the Petitioners, Mr S.
Karpe, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent Nos.1 and
2/State and Mr Anacleto Viegas, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
5.
Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of and
at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties.

6. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have
perused the records.
7. Although the Petition seeks quashing of the FIR and the subsequent
chargesheet in its entirety, during the course of submissions, the learned
Advocate for the Petitioner has restricted his arguments to the application of
Section 8 of the Goa Childre ǿঢ়s Aǉt, ࢳࢱࢱࢴ . He would submit that, taking the

16
5

::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/05/2026 00:05:33 :::

WPCR -20-2026( F )

FIR and the chargesheet at face value, no offence is made out to attract the
offence punishable under Section 8 of the said Act. The allegations against the
Petitioners are that they caught hold of the T-shirt collar of the victim and
punched him near his neck while abusing and threatening him. The contents
of the chargesheet do not make out the ingredients necessary to attract the
o ǟǟeǿǉe uǿder Seǉtioǿ 8 oǟ the Goa Childreǿঢ়s Aǉt, ࢳࢱࢱࢴ. AǉǉordiǿǠ to hiǾ,
the said provision pertains to serious offences involving child abuse. Placing
reliance o ǿ the judǠǾeǿt oǟ the Hoǿঢ়ǈle SupreǾe Court iǿ the Ǿatter oǟ
1
Santosh Sahadev Khajnekar V/s. State of Goa , the learned Advocate for
the Petitioners has argued that the aforesaid incident is a solitary, isolated
incident. There is no cruelty, exploitation or deliberate ill treatment. The
, 2003 cannot be to criminalise
legislative intent o ǟ the Goa Childreǿঢ়s Aǉt
minor incidental acts arising out of simple quarrels. He has also placed reliance
on several judgments of this Court namely, Suresh Narvekar V/s. State of
2 3 4
Goa , Sarvesh Vernekar V/s. State , Smita Khaunte V/s. State , Dinesh
5 6
Gawas V/s. State , Priya Karekar V/s. Police Inspector, Panaji Town
7
and Dr. Vasudev Deshprabhu V/s. State .
8.
Responding to the arguments of the Petitioners, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, Mr Karpe, strenuously submitted that Section 8 of the said
Act provides for punishment for offence of child abuse. He invites the

1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1828
2
2010 SCC OnLine Bom 2337
3
CRIR No.358/2023(F) decided on 24.07.2023
4
2015 SCC OnLine Bom 5633
5
CRIA No.5/2019 decided on 11.11.2025
6
WPCR No.141/2016 decided on 20.02.2017
7
2024 SCC OnLine Bom 688

16
6

::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/05/2026 00:05:33 :::

WPCR -20-2026( F )

attention of this Court to Section 2(m) of the said Act, which defines the
, of the
o ǟǟeǿǉe oǟ ড়ǉhild aǈuseঢ় as the ǾaltreatǾeǿt, Λhether haǈitual or ǿot
child, which includes psychological and physical abuse amongst other
ingredients. He would submit that the complaint of the victim, read with his
statement under Section 164(5) of CrPC, clearly makes out two important
aspects. Firstly , that the victim was earlier attacked and assaulted by the Silva
brothers (Petitioner Nos.2 and 3) prior to the incident in question on
21.10.2023, for which he had sought legal redressal. Hence, it was argued that
this was not an isolated solitary incident. The earlier assault was only by the
D ঢ়SilΚa family, ǈut the preseǿt assault Λas ǈΡ the Dঢ়SilΚa family along with
one of their friends. This clearly shows that there was an escalation by the
Petitioners to put the victim in fear of losing his life and limb. Secondly , that
the incident as narrated by the victim is not a reaction or fallout of any quarrel
which has happened on the spur of the moment, but the sequence of events
would suggest that there was a clear intention on the part of the Petitioners to
physically assault and psychologically abuse and threaten the victim to put him
under fear of further escalation of violence. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor would also submit that the ড়Hurt Certiǟiǉateঢ় ǉlearlΡ reǟleǉts
tenderness over the right side of the neck, which is in consonance with the
allegation that one of the Petitioners punched the victim near the throat area
on the neck. It was also canvassed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
that the incident was unprovoked and intentional. The threats given by the
Petitioners that they would kill the victim by choking wherever he is found
and that he will be assaulted in the same way that his father was assaulted are

16
7

::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/05/2026 00:05:33 :::

WPCR -20-2026( F )

calculated to strike fear in the mind of the victim and hence the allegations in
the FIR and the chargesheet would certainly be covered by the definition of
ড়ǉhild aǈuseঢ় as set out iǿ Seǉtioǿ ࢳশ m) of the said Act punishable under
Section 8 (2).
9.
Heard Mr Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocate for the Petitioners, Mr
Somnath Karpe Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent Nos.1 and
2/State and Mr Anacleto Viegas, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
10.
Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of and
at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties.

11. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have
perused the records.
12. Appreciating the rival contentions, the question that arises for the
determination of this Court is, firstly, whether the allegations in the FIR and
the chargesheet taken at face value make out a case for attracting the
ingredients of Section 2(m) of the said Act and secondly, as a logical corollary
thereof, whether the aforesaid allegations prima facie make out a case for an
offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the said Act.
13.
Revisiting the facts of this case, and examining the complaint, the
statement of the victim under 164 of CrPC and the statements of other
witnesses, several important aspects come to the fore. The 164 statement of
the victim is in consonance with the complaint. The allegations made by the victim
against the Petitioners are clear unambiguous. For a better
and appreciation, the

16
8

::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/05/2026 00:05:33 :::

WPCR -20-2026( F )

allegations can be divided into (a) physical assault by the Petitioners on the
victim, (b) the abuses and threats given by the Petitioners to the victim, and
(c) the psychological abuse of the victim at the hands of the Petitioners. It is
pertinent to note that the incident narrated by the victim is not a solitary
incident. He has made allegations of a prior incident of assault at the hands of
Petitioners No.2 and 3, for which the victim had sought legal redressal. The
threats that are allegedly given by the Petitioners are that the victim will be
assaulted in the same way that his father was assaulted. To quote the
complaint, he would break me like he broke my father . Here, it would be
৚ ৛
relevant to add that the 164 statement of the victim mentions about the
background of animosity between the victim and the Petitioners No.2 to 4,
water sports activities. The physical assault, as
শDঢ়SilΚa ǟaǾilΡষ Λith respeǉt to
per the allegation of the victim, was that the Petitioners punched the victim
near his throat on his neck, a fact which is corroborated by the Hurt
Certificate. The Petitioner No.2 also held the neck of the victim and
threatened that he would kill the victim by choking. The entire incident seems
to be unprovoked and premeditated. There was no quarrel or argument
between the Petitioners and the victim prior to the incident. It does not seem
to be an assault on the spur of the moment. The allegation, taken at face value,
clearly indicates that the intention of the Petitioners was to cause physical
harm to the victim and, more importantly, put him under psychological
pressure. The threats given by the Petitioners that they would kill the victim
by choking him wherever he is found and that he will be assaulted in the same
way that his father was assaulted, prima facie , seem to be calculated to strike

16
9

::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/05/2026 00:05:33 :::

WPCR -20-2026( F )

fear in the mind of the victim. Here, it would be relevant to reproduce Section
2(m) of the said Act :
ࢳশǾষ ৚Child aǈuse৛ reǟers to the ǾaltreatǾeǿt, Λhether haǈitual or
not, of the child which includes any of the following:—
(i) psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and
emotional maltreatment;
(ii) any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the
intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being;
(iii) unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival such as
food and shelter; or failure to immediately give medical treatment to
an injured child resulting in serious impairment of his growth and
development or in his permanent incapacity or death;
৛
From a perusal of the above provision, it is clear that physical abuse,
psychological abuse, cruelty and maltreatment of a child come within the
scope of the definition of Section 2(m). It is also evident that it is not necessary
that the maltreatment envisaged in the aforesaid provision is habitual. On
facts, the allegations as narrated aforesaid prima facie make out a case of
physical and psychological abuse. The statement of the victim is corroborated
by the statement of an eyewitness, a friend of the mother of the victim, who
has also seen the incident and can corroborate the allegations. Thus, the
offence defined by Section 2(m) and penalised by Section 8(2) of the said Act
is prima facie made out from a holistic reading of the chargesheet.
14.
Examining the various judgments cited at the Bar, both parties have
relied on the pro ǿouǿǉeǾeǿt oǟ the Hoǿঢ়ǈle SupreǾe Court iǿ the Ǿatter oǟ
Santosh Sahadev Khajnekar (supra), being the o ǿlΡ judǠǾeǿt oǟ the Hoǿঢ়ǈle

16
10

::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/05/2026 00:05:33 :::

WPCR -20-2026( F )

Supreme Court relied upon by the parties. Both parties, in fact, have placed
reliance on paragraph nos.13 to 15 of the aforesaid judgment. It may not be
out of place to reproduce the aforesaid paragraphs, as under:
৚ࢲࢴ. Oǿ a ǈare perusal oǟ the aǈoΚe proΚisioǿs, it is eΚideǿt that the
oǟǟeǿǉe oǟ ৚ǉhild aǈuse৛ as proΚided uǿder seǉtioǿ 8 ǉaǿǿot ǈe
attracted to every trivial or isolated incident involving a child, but
must necessarily co-relate with acts involving cruelty, exploitation,
deliberate ill-treatment, or conduct intended to cause harm. The
legislative intent is to protect children against serious forms of abuse
and not to criminalise minor, incidental acts emanating during the
course of simple quarrels.
14. The only allegation against the appellant as borne out from the
statement of PW-3, the injured child is that the appellant hit him with
the school bag belonging to his own son. Even if we accept the injured
child's version in entirety, it would still not be sufficient to hold the
appella ǿt ǠuiltΡ ǟor the oǟǟeǿǉe oǟ ৚ǉhild aǈuse৛ puǿishaǈle uǿder
Section 8 of the Act of 2003.
15. The offence of child abuse necessarily presupposes an intention to
cause harm, cruelty, exploitation, or ill-treatment directed towards a
child in a manner that exceeds a mere incidental or momentary act
during a quarrel. A simple blow with a school bag, without any
evidence of deliberate or sustained maltreatment, does not satisfy the
essential ingredients of child abuse. To invoke the penal consequences
of such a serious offence in the absence of clear intention or conduct
indicative of abuse would amount to an unwarranted expansion of the
pro Κisioǿ.৛
The ǟaǉts iǿ the ǉase ǈeǟore the Hoǿঢ়ǈle SupreǾe Court were that the accused
was alleged to have casually hit the victim with the school bag of his son. The
against the concurrent
a ǉǉused Λas ǈeǟore the Hoǿঢ়ǈle SupreǾe Court
findings of the special court and this Court convicting him, inter alia, for an

16
11

::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/05/2026 00:05:33 :::

WPCR -20-2026( F )

offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the said Act. It was in that context
The
that the Ho ǿঢ়ǈle SupreǾe Court Ǿade the aǟore ǿoted oǈserΚatioǿs.
Ho ǿঢ়ǈle SupreǾe Court has oǈserΚed that the oǟǟeǿǉe oǟ ড়ǉhild aǈuseঢ়
necessarily presupposes an intention to cause harm, cruelty, exploitation, etc.
It further holds that to invoke the penal consequences of such a serious offence
in the absence of clear intention would amount to unwarranted expansion of
the pro Κisioǿ. The Hoǿঢ়ǈle SupreǾe Court , while illustrating an incidental
or momentary act during a quarrel, gives the example of the facts in the case,
i.e. a simple blow with a school bag without any evidence of deliberate or
sustained maltreatment. The aforesaid observations o ǟ the Hoǿঢ়ǈle SupreǾe
Court, in fact, apply squarely to the facts of the present case. As observed
hereinbefore, the allegations clearly demonstrate, prima facie , that the act of
verbal and psychological abuse coupled with physical assault was not a solitary
incident. The incident itself was not a momentary act during a quarrel. It was
neither trivial nor isolated and taking the allegations at face value, at this stage,
the alleged incident seems to be aimed at creating psychological fear in the
mind of the victim, the physical assault being only the means to create an
atmosphere of fear in the mind of the victim.
15. Dealing with the judgments of this Court in seriatim, in the judgment
of Suresh Narvekar (supra) by a coordinate Bench of this Court, the facts were
that the minor children sustained burn injuries in an unfortunate incident
involving bursting of fire crackers during a religious procession where one of
the accused was driving the van, the fire crackers were stored in the rear part of
the van which were burst by the other accused. They caught fire, and

16
12

::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/05/2026 00:05:33 :::

WPCR -20-2026( F )

consequently, the minor children in the van succumbed to their burn injuries.
This Court was dealing with a challenge to the order framing charge for
offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the said Act, where the emphasis was
not on ph Ρsiǉal or psΡǉholoǠiǉal aǈuse ǈut oǿ the ড়ǿeǠleǉtঢ় ǟ orming part of the
ingredient of Section 8 of the said Act. It was in this context that this Court
set aside the order of framing charge, giving a finding that the incident had
taken place purely by accident and hence there was no intention to cause any
harm to the children.
16. In the judgment of Sarvesh Vernekar (supra), a coordinate Bench of
this Court was dealing with a challenge to the framing of a charge for an
offence punishable under Section 8 of the said Act. The facts in that case were
that some threatening words were used against the victim and hence this Court
set aside the charge framed against the accused.

17. In the judgment of Smita Khaunte (supra), a Division Bench of this
Court was dealing with the quashing of an FIR, inter alia , for an offence
punishable under Section 8 of the said Act. The facts in that case were that
the accused tried to attack the minor victim. Holding that since the offence
was only that the accused attempted to attack the victim, this Court proceeded
to quash the offence punishable under Section 8 of the said Act.

18. In the judgment of Dinesh Gawas (supra), a coordinate Bench of this
Court, in its criminal appellate jurisdiction, was dealing with an Appeal
against conviction, inter alia , arising out of an offence punishable under
Section 8 of the said Act. The facts in this case were that the accused, the father

16
13

::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/05/2026 00:05:33 :::

WPCR -20-2026( F )

of a minor child, was angered by abuses given to his child by the victim and
hence he chased the victim and assaulted him with a coconut leaf stalk. This
judgment references the judgment of Santosh Khajnekar (supra) and acquits
the accused for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the said Act.
Observing that since bad words were used by the victim against the daughter
of the accused, as a reaction , the accused assaulted the victim. Moreover, this
was an isolated incident and there was no animosity otherwise between the
accused and the victim.
19. In the judgment of Priya Karekar (supra), a Division Bench of this
Court quashed the FIR against the accused for an offence punishable under
Section 8 of the Act on the basis that the accused had verbally abused the
victim and threatened him with dire consequences. This incident was a fallout
of a quarrel which broke out between the occupant of a building, whose glass
pane was broken by the victim and his friends while playing. It was in the
context of these facts that this Court quashed the FIR for an offence
punishable under Section 8 of the said Act.

20. In the judgment of Dr. Vasudev Deshprabhu (supra), a coordinate
Bench of this Court dismissed the Appeal arising out of the conviction of the
accused for offences punishable under Section 8 of the said Act, along with
other offences. Here, the facts were that the accused insulted the minor boy
and assaulted him with a hard wooden object and destroyed the said object in
order to conceal the evidence. Considering the judgments of Priya Karekar
(supra), Suresh Narvekar (supra) and Smita Khaunte (supra), this Court, in

16
14

::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/05/2026 00:05:33 :::

WPCR -20-2026( F )

the ǉoǿteΠt oǟ the deǟiǿitioǿ oǟ ড়ǉhild aǈuseঢ় set out iǿ Seǉtioǿ ࢳশǾষ oǟ the said
Act, observed as under:
৚ 18. The term physical abuse includes assault of a child even on a
solitary incident. It is not necessary that such physical abuse must
be habitual or continuous. The definition itself makes it clear that
child abuse refers to maltreatment, whether habitual or not. The
Λords ৚or ǿot৛ aǟter the Λord ৚haǈitual৛ iǿdiǉate that eΚeǿ a
solitary incident of psychological or physical abuse or otherwise
amounts to ǉhild aǈuse. The oǈjeǉt oǟ the Goa Childreǿঢ়s Aǉt is to
protect, promote and preserve the best interests of Children in Goa
and to create a society that is proud to be child friendly. Thus, even
physical abuse in the form of assault is included within the
definition of child abuse as found in Section 2(m) of the Goa
Childre ǿঢ়s Aǉt……..৛
21.
Save and except for the judgment of Dr. Vasudev Deshprabhu
(supra), all other judgments delivered by this Court are distinguishable on
facts. Moreover, this Court is exercising its inherent jurisdiction to examine
whether the FIR and the chargesheet taken at face value, prima facie , make out
a case for an offence punishable under Section 8 of the said Act. Needless to
say, it is a settled position of law that the circumspection to be exercised by this
Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to quash and set aside the
chargesheet, either whole or in part, is higher than the revisional or appellate
jurisdiction exercised by this Court.

22. As observed hereinabove, the FIR and the chargesheet, prima facie ,
clearly make out an offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the said Act and
hence this Court is not inclined to interfere in its inherent jurisdiction to
quash and set aside the aforesaid FIR No.79/2023 dated 14.11.2023, the

16
15

::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/05/2026 00:05:33 :::

WPCR -20-2026( F )

chargesheet bearing no.3/2024 and the consequent criminal proceedings
arising therefrom. Resultantly, the Writ Petition deserves to be rejected.

23. The Criminal Writ Petition No.20/2026 is rejected. Rule is
discharged. Registry to waive the office objections and number the Petition.
24.
It is clarified that observations made by this Court shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the guilt or otherwise of the
Petitioners. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations
made hereinabove.

ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.

16
16

::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/05/2026 00:05:33 :::