Bombay High Court
State, Thr. P.I. Women Police Station, ... vs Francisco Dias on 5 December, 2025
2025:BHC-GOA:2390 4-CRIR-25-2022-JT.DOC
2025:BHC-GOA:2390
Suchitra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.25/2022
STATE
(Through P.I., WOMEN
POLICE STATION, ... APPLICANT
PANAJI GOA.
Versus
FRANCISCO DIAS
(Major), 67 years of age,
Married, Indian National,
R/o H.No.1033, Primiro Bairo, ... RESPONDENT
Santa Cruz, Tiswadi Goa.
Mr S. G. Bhobe, PP for the Applicant-State.
Mr Iftikhar Agha, Mr Luis Fernandes and Ms V. Fernandes,
Advocates for the Respondent.
CORAM: ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.
DATE : 5th DECEMBER 2025
JUDGMENT:
1. he State has iled the present Revision questioning an Order dated 06.10.2021 passed by Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji in Criminal Revision Application No.32/2020 (impugned Page 1 of 16 5th December 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:55:13 ::: 4-CRIR-25-2022-JT.DOC order) inter alia, discharging the Respondent for the ofences punishable under Sections 509, 352 r/w 506 (II) of IPC.
2. he factual matrix leading to the passing of the impugned order is as under:-
(a) On 10.11.2018, one Ms Avila Nazareth (complainant) iled a complaint with the Women Police Station, Panaji, Goa, inter alia alleging abuse and assault by one Francisco Dias (the Accused-Respondent herein). Based on the complaint, the concerned police station took cognizance, and registered an FIR bearing No.19/2018 dated 13.11.2018 for ofences punishable under Sections 509, 352 r/w 506 (II) of IPC against the Respondent.
(b) he police recorded the statements of the complainant, her mother, their neighbour and other eye witnesses. After conducting investigation, the police iled Final Report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. (Charge-sheet).
(c) On 03.02.2020, the JMFC, Panaji, upon hearing arguments before charge, passed an order framing charges against the Respondent for ofences punishable under Sections 509, 352 r/w 506 (II) of IPC.
(d) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order framing charge, the Respondent iled Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Judge, Panaji, Goa.
Page 2 of 165th December 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:55:13 ::: 4-CRIR-25-2022-JT.DOC
(e) he Sessions Judge, vide the impugned order allowed the Revision Application and discharged the Respondent for the ofences punishable under Sections 509, 352 r/w 506 (II) of IPC.
(f ) Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order, the State iled the present Revision Application on 07.01.2022.
3. Heard. Perused the record and the judgments relied upon by the rival parties.
4. Before adverting to the order impugned and the reasoning therein, it would be necessary to set out the ofences involved, the parameters of recording/framing the charge and the power of the Trial Court dealing with an application for discharge.
5. Chapter XIX sets out the scheme of Cr.P.C. dealing with the trial of warrant cases by Magistrates instituted on a police report. Section 238 Cr.P.C. casts a duty upon the Magistrate to satisfy himself as to whether the provisions of Section 207 are complied with where the accused appears or is brought before in any warrant case instituted on a police report. Here it would be necessary to examine the scope of Section 207 Cr.P.C., which again casts a duty on the Magistrate to furnish copies of certain documents to the accused. hese include the police report, FIR recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., statements recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, with certain exceptions, the confessions and statements if any, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and Page 3 of 16 5th December 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:55:13 ::: 4-CRIR-25-2022-JT.DOC any other document or extract forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report.
6. hus at the stage of Section 238 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is expected to ensure that the copies of the aforesaid documents are furnished to the accused without delay.
7. Section 239 Cr.P.C. deals with the provision when the accused is discharged from the proceedings instituted against him on a police report. It casts a duty on the Magistrate to consider the police report, the documents sent with it under Section 173 Cr.P.C., examine the accused as he thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and accused an opportunity of being heard, to discharge the accused if he considers the charge against the accused to be groundless. he Section further casts a duty on the Magistrate to record his reasons for discharging the accused.
8. Section 240 Cr.P.C., deals with the framing of charge. It contemplates an opinion to be formed by the Magistrate upon consideration, examination if any, and hearing, that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an ofence triable under Chapter XIX which can be adequately punished by the Magistrate and tried by him, the Magistrate shall proceed to frame a charge against the accused in writing. his charge is then read and explained to the accused and he is asked whether he pleads guilty of the ofence charged or claims to be tried.
9. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is evident that while dealing with an application for discharge or while Page 4 of 16 5th December 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:55:13 ::: 4-CRIR-25-2022-JT.DOC forming an opinion to frame charge, the Magistrate is duty- bound to consider only the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 Cr.P.C. He is expected to give the prosecution and accused an opportunity of being heard and record his reasons in case he forms an opinion that the charge against the accused is groundless. However, if he forms an opinion that the accused has committed an ofence, then, he will proceed to frame a charge against the accused.
10. Re-visiting the facts of the case, it is seen that the inal report iled by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. inter alia consists of the FIR, the complaints dated 10.11.2018, one iled before the Women Police Station, Panaji, Goa and the other iled before the Old Goa Police Station, the statement of the complainant dated 13.11.2018, statement of her mother dated 19.11.2018, Panchanamas, etc. Mr Bhobe, learned Public Prosecutor has strenuously argued that the impugned order does not take into consideration the fact that the statements in the inal report make out ofences punishable under Sections 509, 352 r/w 506 (II) of IPC at a prima facie stage. He has also urged that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not expected to ind out if the material is suicient for conviction and is only expected to form an opinion whether the material is suicient to indicate a prima facie case against the accused. He submits that the impugned order also sufers from non-application of mind since the learned Trial Court did not Page 5 of 16 5th December 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:55:13 ::: 4-CRIR-25-2022-JT.DOC appreciate the evidence on record in the proper perspective and prays that the same may be quashed and set aside.
11. Countering the submissions of the learned PP, Mr I. Agha has supported the impugned order urging that the complaint on which the FIR is based, does not disclose speciic words uttered by the accused so as to bring them within the scope of Section 509, IPC. Similarly, the complaint is silent about the manner in which the threats were allegedly given by the accused. He submits that the power to discharge the accused takes within its sweep, the power of the Trial Court to sift and weigh the material placed on record in order to ind out whether ingredients of particular ofence, are made out. Where the materials on record give rise to two views and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the Trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused. He has supported the observation of the learned Trial Court that there is a civil dispute pending between the parties and the possibility of lodging false complaints in connection with the civil dispute cannot be ruled out. He submits that the impugned order is well-reasoned and does not require any interference by this Court.
12. Both sides relied upon case laws which will be dealt with hereinafter.
13. Examining the statements and documents sent along with the police report, it is seen that although the initial complaint dated 10.11.2018 alleges abuse and assault, it does not spell out the details of the same. However, it would be pertinent to note Page 6 of 16 5th December 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:55:13 ::: 4-CRIR-25-2022-JT.DOC that it is the settled position of law that the complaint is only the information that is given to the police to enable them to initiate criminal proceedings. It need not be encyclopedic in nature nor is it contemplated that it should spell out each and every detail of the ofence.
14. It is in this light, that it would be necessary to advert to the statement of the complainant recorded on 13.11.2018 which forms the basis of the FIR. his statement mentions that the complainant is staying at the relevant address along with her mother-in-law and two minor children. It mentions that the Respondent is her neighbour and has been harassing her for a couple of months prior to the incident. hat, on 10.11.2018, she noticed a labourer putting up some rubble stones on the pathway on behalf of the Respondent. At that time, the Respondent was also present. When the complainant stopped the labourer from putting up the rubble stones, the Respondent started abusing her in a ilthy language. It is pertinent to note that speciic words of abuses are reproduced in the statement. It also narrates that the Respondent made obscene gestures to her from his house compound.
15. he statement of the mother corroborates the statement of the complainant. he mother states that the Respondent came to assault them and threatened with dire consequences, due to which they were constrained to call the police and both parties were called to the police station. She also corroborates the act of the Respondent making obscene gestures towards them as narrated by her daughter.
Page 7 of 165th December 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:55:13 ::: 4-CRIR-25-2022-JT.DOC
16. he statement of the neighbor, one Mrs Roshina Dias also corroborates the statements of the complainant and her mother. She has also set out the speciic words which were uttered by the Respondent to abuse the complainant.
17. he police report contains a second complaint of the same date i.e. 10.11.2018 iled by the same complainant to the Old Goa Police Station. his complaint alleges that the Respondent was cementing the private passage on the rear side of the residential house of the complainant and was thereby trespassing in her property. he statement also refers to a complaint under Section 133 Cr.P.C. iled by the Respondent claiming that the passage/access is a public passage. It is pertinent to note that the statement does refer to allegations of harassment and threat to kill, abusive language, etc.
18. Before analyzing the aforesaid statements, it would be relevant to discuss the ofences that the Respondent is arraigned with and their ingredients.
19. Section 509 of the IPC speaks of any word, gesture or act to insult the modesty of a woman. It is applicable to any word uttered or sound or gesture made or object exhibited by any person intending that such word, sound, gesture or object shall be seen by the woman and thereby intends to insult her modesty or intrudes upon her privacy is said to have committed an ofence under Section 509 of IPC.
Page 8 of 165th December 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:55:13 ::: 4-CRIR-25-2022-JT.DOC
20. Section 352 of the IPC contemplates punishment for assault or criminal force by any person without any grave and sudden provocation by the other person. he word "assault" is deined under Section 351 IPC and contemplates any gesture or preparation with an intention to cause the person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person. he words "force" and "criminal force" are also exhaustively deined under Sections 349 of IPC and 350 of IPC, respectively.
21. Section 506 of IPC provides for punishment for criminal intimidation and is divided into two parts. he ofence of simpliciter criminal intimidation is the irst part and if the threat is to cause death or grievous hurt, then, Part II of Section 506 IPC can be invoked. Section 503 of IPC deines criminal intimidation and states that any person who threatens another with injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person or reputation of any person in whom that person is interested, with an intention to cause alarm to that person, inter alia, is said to have committed the ofence of criminal intimidation.
22. he statement of the complainant dated 13.11.2018 clearly mentions that on the date of the incident i.e. 10.11.2018, the accused abused her using vulgar and ilthy language in Konkani. he ilthy abuses are also mentioned in the statement. She further states that he also made obscene gestures to her from his compound. From the aforesaid discussion on Section 509 IPC, the statement on its bare perusal clearly makes out the ofence under Section 509 of IPC.
Page 9 of 165th December 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:55:13 ::: 4-CRIR-25-2022-JT.DOC
23. he statement of the mother dated 19.11.2018, who was also present at the time of the incident i.e. 10.11.2018, mentions that the accused abused both of them in ilthy language in Konkani. She further states that the accused came to assault them and threaten them with dire consequences. She also states that the accused made obscene gestures towards both of them.
24. he statement of the neighbor Roshina Dias corroborates the statements of the complainant and her mother. She states that she has witnessed the accused using abusive and ilthy words to the complainant and her mother. In fact, she also states that the accused abused her in similar ilthy language and also threatened them saying "I will not spare you". She also mentions in her statement that when the police left, the accused started saying the ilthy words again.
25. he statements of the complainant, her mother and the neighbor, read as a whole, clearly make out the ofences punishable under Sections 509, 352 and 506 (II) of IPC.
26. Insofar as the reasoning of the impugned order is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge has erred in not appreciating that at the stage of framing of charge, even though it is permissible to sift and weigh the materials brought on record by the prosecution for the limited purpose of inding of whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the accused, however, appreciating the admissibility and evidential value of those materials brought on record by the prosecution is impermissible. he learned Sessions Judge has erroneously relied only on the Page 10 of 16 5th December 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:55:13 ::: 4-CRIR-25-2022-JT.DOC written complaint of the complainant and completely disregarded the statements of the complainant, her mother and the neighbor.
27. It is also a settled position of law that at the stage of framing of charge the Court has to proceed with an assumption that the police report and the documents sent along with the report are true and correct and evaluate the materials to ind out whether the facts taken at their face value disclose the existence of the ingredients constituting the ofence. hus only the probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter to hold a mini trial. his was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of TN v/s. N. Suresh Rajan - (2014) 11 SCC 709.
28. In the case of Ram Prakash Chadha v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh - (2024) 10 SCC 651, while dealing with the issue of discharge, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to the case of State of Orissa v/s. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568, to discuss what are the materials available for consideration of an application iled for discharge. It has also referred to the decision in Yogesh v/s. State of Maharashtra - (2008) 10 SCC 394 , to observe that exercise of judicial mind on the part of the Judge to the facts of the case revealed from the materials brought on record by the prosecution is only in order to determine whether case for trial has been made out. he strong suspicion in order to be suicient to frame the charge should be based on the materials brought on record by the prosecution. he Apex Court has also referred to the decision in Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v/s. Dilip Nathumal Chordia - (1989) 1 SCC 715 where the Hon'ble Page 11 of 16 5th December 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:55:13 ::: 4-CRIR-25-2022-JT.DOC Supreme Court had held that the word "ground" does not mean a ground for conviction, but a ground for putting the accused on trial. At paragraph 24 of Ram Prakash Chadha (supra), the Apex Court observed as under:
"24. In the light of the decisions referred supra, it is thus obvious that it will be within the jurisdiction of the Court concerned to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of inding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused concerned has been made out. We are of the considered view that a caution has to be sounded for the reason that the chances of going beyond the permissible jurisdiction under Section 227 CrPC, and entering into the scope of power under Section 232 CrPC, cannot be ruled out as such instances are aplenty. In this context, it is relevant to refer to a decision of this Court in Om Parkash Sharma v. CBI. Taking note of the language of Section 227 CrPC. is in negative terminology and that the language in Section 232 CrPC, is in the positive terminology and considering this distinction between the two. this Court held that it would not be open to the Court while considering an application under Section 227 CrPC, to weigh the pros and cons of the evidence alleged improbability and then proceed to discharge the accused holding that the statements existing in the case therein are unreliable. It is held that doing so would be practically acting under Section 232 CrPC, even though the said stage has not reached. In short, though it is permissible to sift and weigh the materials for the limited purpose of inding out whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the accused, on appreciation of the admissibility and the evidentiary value such materials brought on record by the prosecution is impermissible as it would amount to denial of opportunity to the prosecution to prove them appropriately at the appropriate stage besides amounting to exercise of the power coupled with obligation under Section Page 12 of 16 5th December 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:55:13 ::: 4-CRIR-25-2022-JT.DOC 232 CrPC, available only after taking the evidence for the prosecution and examining the accused."
29. Applying the aforesaid guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to the reasoning of the impugned order, it is evident that the learned Sessions Judge has erred in taking into consideration the other complaint iled by the complainant on the same day and coming to a conclusion that there was a dispute between the complainant and the accused with regard to the access to the main road and that the civil dispute pending between the parties gives rise to the possibility of lodging false complaint in connection with the civil dispute. hese observations, in my considered view, are surmises and conjectures which are clearly in the teeth of the aforesaid guidelines of the Apex Court.
30. he Applicant has relied on the judgment of Vikram Johar v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. - (2019) 14 SCC 207, Rajendra Chandrakant Dhuru & Ors. v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. - 2003 All MR (Cri) 2511 and Manik Taneja & Anr. v/s. State of Karnataka & Anr. - AIR 2015 SC (Criminal) 587, to support his argument that the ingredients of criminal intimidation are not satisied in the facts of the present case. However, from the aforesaid discussion and consideration of the statements recorded by the police, it is evident that the essential ingredients of Section 506 (II) of IPC are clearly made out. he veracity of the statements cannot be ascertained without a trial and the exercise conducted by the learned Sessions Judge to dissect the ingredients of criminal intimidation at the preliminary stage of framing the charge is clearly impermissible.
Page 13 of 165th December 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:55:13 ::: 4-CRIR-25-2022-JT.DOC
31. he Applicant has relied on the judgment of Sajjan Kumar v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation - (2010) 9 SCC 368 , which has dealt with the exercise of jurisdiction under Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. Paragraph 21 of the said judgment observed thus:
"Exercise of jurisdiction under Sections 227 and 228 CrPC
21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:
(i) he Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of inding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. he test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justiied in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) he court cannot act merely as a post oice or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total efect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic inirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed ofence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond Page 14 of 16 5th December 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:55:13 ::: 4-CRIR-25-2022-JT.DOC reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the ofence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisied that the commission of ofence by the accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to ind out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged ofence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal."
32. he Applicant has relied on Clause (i), (ii) and (vii) of the aforesaid judgment. However, from a reading of the aforesaid clauses, it is clear that clause (i) contemplates that the power to sift and weigh the evidence is for a limited purpose of inding of whether or not there is a " prima facie" case against the accused. he test to determine "prima facie" case would depend upon the facts of each case. Clause (ii) states that the disclosure of grave suspicion is enough to justify framing of the charge. In fact, Page 15 of 16 5th December 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:55:13 ::: 4-CRIR-25-2022-JT.DOC Clause (v) clearly cautions that at the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into and Clause (vi) contemplates that the Court is required to evaluate material and documents on record with a view to ind out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged ofence. Clause (vii) also does not take the case of the Applicant any further since in the wake of the fact situation, there is clearly a grave suspicion and in fact "prima facie" satisfaction that the ingredients of the ofence alleged are made out from the inal report and the documents forwarded along with the report by the police.
33. In the wake of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order is not sustainable in law and requires to be quashed and set aside.
34. he impugned order dated 06.10.2021 passed by the Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji is quashed and set aside.
35. he Criminal Case No.IPC 96/2019/C is restored to the ile of the learned JMFC, Panaji with directions to proceed in accordance with law.
36. he Applicant to appear before the learned JMFC, Panaji on 04.02.2026 at 10.00 a.m. ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.
Page 16 of 165th December 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:55:13 :::